Terrifying insect-sized robots could render humanity EXTINCT 'by the end of this century', expert warns
In a new book, Louis del Monte, a physicist from Minnesora warns that these tiny weapons - dubbed 'nanoweapons' - could lead to the most destructive world war yet which could spell the end for humanity.
And this isn't just a long-term worry, as Mr del Monte has warned that the tiny weapons could render humans extinct by the end of the century . . .
. . . Although Mr del Monte comments that some of his predictions might sound like they are right out of Star Trek he says that 'factually a new arms race is under way.'
'The superpowers of the future will be those nations with the most capable nanoweapons', he claims.
The scientist said so. Plan accordingly.
Science with a tax attached is a scam.
NPR ran this story this morning:
Top Scientists Revamp Standards To Foster Integrity In Research
" . . The report published Tuesday, "Fostering Integrity in Research," shines a spotlight on how the research enterprise as a whole creates incentives that can be detrimental to good research . . "
As a whole. As in asshole. As in the asshole Obama who sought to criminalize climate debate.
Let’s cherry pick another quote from the above sourced article:
"It's been 25 years since the National Academy of Sciences set its standards for appropriate scientific conduct, and the world of science has changed dramatically in that time. So now the academies of science, engineering and medicine have updated their standards".
This is a process that has nothing to do with “asshole Obama”.
Yeez, some people need to come to grips with the reality that Obama is no longer president.
The three major issues with science today are:
1) Proper handling of statistics (particularly with sciences that use lab/study results, like nutrition science & psychology). There is a "movement" of sorts to improve reproducibility standards spearheaded by a guy I knew in high school, Brian Nosek.
2) The media.
3) The media.
The media encourages taking preliminary results out of context & and out of proportion. Because of this, it starts to bend researchers to make results look "good", and warps funding in strange ways.
Obviously we can't muzzle the press but it would be nice if they held their fact checking to the same level of scrutiny as in other arenas. Part of the problem is that readers are generally under-educated so it becomes more difficult to convey a TL;DR summary with any kind of accuracy.
Wow I got a double post, too much coffee = twitchy mouse clicking finger
Cherry picking? The selected quote is NPR's summary of the report!
Scientists lie for money and we know it. The so called 'overwhelming majority' of climate scientists have been caught fudging their condemning figures at least twice. The Asshole used their numbers to characterize global warming as our #1 national security threat in order to criminalize it and ultimately, to prosecute deniers.
Buy our bought up lie . . or else. Have a nice life wallowing in the light of Obama's legacy.
Just because a few bad apples exist in the community doesn't make the phenomenon wrong... that's just an attempt at character assassination.
Look at the science yourself. It's not complicated (certainly not as complicated as climate deniers would have you think). When it comes to stock picking and science, I *always* recommend that you evaluate things in a vacuum.
Put away all your stupid websites, ignore Al Gore and the IPCC, and pick up a physics textbook, learn about blackbody radiation, read up on basic climate science, and do the evaluation yourself.
Global warming due to man made CO2 is a hoax.
Not one of the proponents of anthropological global warming will ever address the scientific fact that 95% of the molecules up there that capture escaping infrared radiation are……water vapor; H2O. Kewl!
A retired professor and glacier expert has publicly declared global warming a good thing. He also refuses to go along with many of his scientific peers who he says have urged him to be in lockstep with former Vice President Al Gore – “the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster.”
He said he thinks dire global warming predictions are really all about lassoing federal research funding and votes.
“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” the glaciologist added.
Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”
The proponents of AGW are not ethically or scientifically corrupt....they really are not. They are either misinformed, delusional or lying...pick one.
@Spider: if you read the article, he doesn't say it's a hoax, and indeed FULLY agrees that anthropogenic CO2 will warm the planet. What he says is that melting glaciers and rising sea levels are a good thing.
Do you agree with him?
Do I believe him?
Assuming him is U of Maine professor emeritus Terry Hughes….
He said he thinks dire global warming predictions are really all about lassoing federal research funding and votes.
I believe him.
“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,”
‘While much of the debate over climate change surrounds whether or not it is occurring, one glaciologist and retired professor says the real issue is that the topic is being used as a political pawn to siphon money and votes.’
But what he wants people to understand is that climate change researchers and politicians collude to create fear of a disaster that will never happen.
97% of what?
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
All too many alarmist climate scientists have received millions in taxpayer grants over the years, relied on computer models that do not reflect real-world observations, attacked and refused to debate scientists who disagree with manmade climate cataclysm claims, refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers – and then used their work to make or justify demands that the world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and have lifted billions out of nasty, brutish, life-shortening poverty and disease.
A recent US House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change showcased this. Testimony by climate scientists Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr. contrasted sharply with that of Dr. Michael Mann.
Mann said the other three witnesses represent a “tiny minority” who stand opposed to the 97% who agree that “climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.” He defended his “hockey stick” historic temperature graph, claimed climate models have been “tested vigorously and rigorously” and have “passed a number of impressive tests,” insisted that warming [of a couple hundredths of a degree] in recent years proves that manmade global warming “has continued unabated,” and accused those who contest these statements of being “anti-science” deniers.
The “97% consensus” is imaginary – a fabrication. One source was a survey sent to 10,256 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. But their number was arbitrarily reduced to 77 “expert” or “active” climate researchers, of which 75 agreed with two simplistic questions that many would support. (Has Earth warmed since 1800? Did humans play a significant role?) Voila! 97% consensus. But what about the other 3,069 respondents? 75 out of 3,146 is barely 0.02 percent. Purported consensus studies by Cook, Oreskes and others were just as bogus.
Global cooling….no way…..maybe.
Four major European institutions all come out saying that this grand solar minimum will soon lower earth’s temperature by at least half a degree Celsius, if not more.
The four institutions, the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern, all have come out admitting that the sun dominates the earth’s climate.
They also admit that burning fossil fuels is less important than computer models first suggested. They even refer to previous times in history when abrupt climate change was brought on by the sun.
According to their calculations, it is going to cool from now until at least 2040. They attribute the cooling to what is known as the 60-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
“Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates
in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely
caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena
that are more poorly understood. While major green house gas H2O
substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3”.
Use the link below to access the paper containing the conclusion above.http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
“The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.”
“The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.”
The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners
" . . Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher now than in 1992. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts sea levels will rise as much as three feet in Miami by 2060. By the end of the century, according to projections by Zillow, some 934,000 existing Florida properties, worth more than $400 billion, are at risk of being submerged . . "
" . . The effects of climate-driven price drops could ripple across the economy, and eventually force the federal government to decide what is owed to people whose home values are ruined by climate change . . "
934,000 owners of 4 foot properties have until 2060 to adjust their plans but if they don't, no worries . . call Sam.
The mayor of Coral Gables loves to talk about climate change with reporters who like to sell nightmares.
They will just raise (your) taxes and build a dike, like Amsterdam. It will be the tyranny of the wealthy property owners all over again.
A full rebuke of the paper can be found here:http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_a...
But the specific address of the paragraph you quoted is here (emphasis mine):"Fifth paragraph and Figure 3: Were the atmospheric temperature regulated only by the Sun, it
would be frightfully cold at night; even in the polar night, temperatures do not fall to absolute
zero. Conditions result from the interactions of many factors—and the Earth’s greenhouse
effect, which depends on the atmospheric composition of water vapor and other gases, is
absolutely essential to determining the present climate. As one measure of the importance,
the infrared radiation emitted from the atmosphere back to the surface, integrated over the
world and day-night cycle, is more than twice as much as the solar radiation absorbed at the
surface. Regarding the plot of solar radiation, the solar activity that is shown is inferred from
changes in sunspot numbers, and recent satellite observations indicate that the inversion
overestimates the variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Again,
considering a correlation with use of hydrocarbons makes no sense for it leaves out the roles
of other factors."
One person (scientist) (Michael MacCracken) expressing disagreement with a scientific paper does not constitute a ‘full rebuke’ in the scientific world….in the emotional world yes. In the scientific world that is called a ‘differing professional opinion’….not a ‘full rebuke’.
Robinson-Robinson and Soon say:. “While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3”.
“Conditions result from the interactions of many factors—and the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which depends on the atmospheric composition of water vapor and other gases, is absolutely essential to determining the present climate”
Anonymous_Coward says: We have a full rebuke here!
Spider says: Do you understand that when you quantify the effect of H2O on the greenhouse effect, and still believe that the 0.04% of CO2 molecules up there are causing ‘global warming’…..you are using flawed logic?
MacCracken….that name sounds familiar…..Climate Gate email scandal.
That is the one where the warmists were found to be “hiding the decline” and scientist Mann was discovered to have flaws in his hockey stick graph so IPCC took it down.
2009 ClimateGate email: Warmist MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong - if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong
Spider says…so if your prediction might be wrong….alter the data? Junk science prevails in the arguments of the warmists….see below.
“In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
AC, a little while ago you were pointing to the California drought as proof of man-caused climate change, and that it was also proof that said climate change was harmful. Now that the California drought has ended, would you like an opportunity to revise your remarks? Or is the rather decisive ending of the drought more proof of climate change?
I want to march for cheap energy such as the energy we get from fossil fuels, because I care about human lives, and cheap energy has extended life expectancy and lifted more human beings out of poverty than any other innovation in human history.
Let’s stipulate that one, crucial point before we try to force people to submit to any particular orthodoxy about public policy (regulations) surrounding “climate change.” Agreed?
True: cheap energy a boon to human life
Back to my cave now.
Global temperatures have been cycling for a long time and not because of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Global warming/climate change is one thing but:
Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions
Buy the book at this LINK, Northarrow.
Richard Harris is an NPR science journalist and author of Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions (Basic Books, 2017). He explains how competition for funding and a pressure to publish breakthrough research at a rapid pace are undermining advances in treating cancer, ALS, and other diseases. He also highlights opportunities for a system overhaul.
This guy was on Science Friday with Ira Flatus. Flatus did make note of the timing for this segment . . the day before the march . . He also referenced the research report I posted up above so I commend him for both.
And hold the dike, a_c, 'Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher' may require more scientific scrutiny.
@Spider: "One person (scientist) (Michael MacCracken) expressing disagreement with a scientific paper does not constitute a ‘full rebuke’ in the scientific world….in the emotional world yes. In the scientific world that is called a ‘differing professional opinion’….not a ‘full rebuke’."
What I meant was, he rebuked the entire paper, not that the entire scientific community rose up in arms and rebuked the guy. Sorry for the confusion.
"Robinson-Robinson and Soon say:. “While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3”."
To be more specific, the thing that is missed here is that while water vapor has the stronger overall forcing (it is the strongest greenhouse gas), the wavelengths that it interacts with are different than those of CO2 & CH4 (CH4 is actually a stronger overall per molecule since it has fewer overlaps with water vapor).
So you can have water vapor doing a great deal of forcing, the forcing by CO2 & CH4 is still very relevant.
What gets climate scientists worried, of course, is that with rising sea surface temperatures, you get exponentially more water vapor in the atmosphere because of the Clausius Clapeyron curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation).
So, if you apply X amount of warming from CO2, you get more than X amount of overall warming because of the additional increase in water vapor.
Does that make sense? I apologize it's been a long time since I've written about this and may be skipping parts of the logic.
@VS:"AC, a little while ago you were pointing to the California drought as proof of man-caused climate change, and that it was also proof that said climate change was harmful. Now that the California drought has ended, would you like an opportunity to revise your remarks? Or is the rather decisive ending of the drought more proof of climate change?"
No, or rather, not yet. As you probably know from reading climate science as portrayed in the news, the difference between weather and climate is that climate happens over a long period of time and weather happens over a short period of time.
So, if we had a cold March/April, I would say, hey that sucks, but it's not necessarily indicative of global cooling.
For California, I would put the 2015-16 rain on El Nino (which has a positive correlation with precip in California), but I honestly don't know about 2016-17.
If it kept raining like this in California for a few years, I would certainly revisit at the very least my positing that increasing global temperatures are causing California droughts. But as everyone in Maine knows, the difference between snow and no snow is the fickle path of a storm. The jetstream that delivers storms in mid latitude winters really tends to jump around, and it could simply be that California got hit a few more times than usual (i.e. luck).
@mainemom: the rejection of GMOs is utter horse shit. They are totally fine (as far as I understand - I am not a biologist), and the paranoia and general organic trend is totally stupid.
Also, for the record, I *am* in favor of using Roundup, I just want it to follow the same guidelines every other pesticide has to follow (i.e. can't we just enforce the laws as they are written, instead of legislating from the executive branch?)
@Spider: "Global temperatures have been cycling for a long time and not because of CO2 in the atmosphere."
I think I've stated before on this thread that the point of climate change is not that CO2 & temperature have jumped up and down naturally - the point is that this is the first time in the history of the Earth that CO2 has been *forcibly* increased by a mechanism not related to natural variability.