Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Solar Minimum = 30 years of colder weather!

Your premise is flawed because many "degreed" scientists have had their research ignored by the "peer-reviewed" concept. Why? Simply because their studies do not fit with the "consensus" - which is another significant flaw. When you mix political agendas with true scientific theory, the result is a hoax of unparalleled proportion.
There are other scientists who have shown the present solar minimum upon us. Its no secret, the sun has many high and low periods of activities - mostly cyclical.
From tree ring analysis to the 420,000 Vostok Ice Core, its all there for an objective analysis.
Mankind will be forced to live with its errant thinking and pay a high price.
The science of climatology is a complex blend of rigorous disciplines which go much father than CO2 concentrations. But the average person has little aptitude or inclination to educate themselves.

I think you just proved my first couple of comments.

Show me john L. Casey's credentials. I can't find them. Anywhere. What schools did he graduate from?

I got my Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of the Cumberlands, a fine school associated with the Southern Baptist Church.

My Master of Science Degree is from Eastern Kentucky University. While there I published my Master's thesis and and a paper on an important East Ky Forest.

In the latter paper I disagreed with the findings of one of the leading professors at the University of Kentucky. He did not "suppress" my research but supported it. That is what science is about.

I have seen scientific information suppressed by politicians but never by scientists.

"Peer review" often works to stultify scientific discovery and advance and to reinforce the status quo of the exiting scientific power structure. Peer Review certainly provides some assurance (perhaps very little however) that a given scientific work is emprirically rigorous and scientifically sound, but the fact that an article or theory has not been peer reviewed is no evidence whatsoever that it lacks empirical or scientific validity. In the famous words of Albert Einstein when Hitler trotted out a bevy of nuclear physicists to try to undermine the claims of relativity, "it only takes one to prove me wrong"; and as Michael Crichton once famously remarked "[c]onsensus science is not science, it is politics".


Jordan

At least one climate skeptic does take Casey seriously: Casey is listed in Sen. Jim Inhofe's (R-OK) report on "700 International Scientists [Who] Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." Inhofe has called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and compared Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Inhofe's lists of scientists are famous for being light on the climate scientists, and heavy on "economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs, as well as scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries."
Media Matters

A link to another article of an "expert" that Sen Inhofe quotes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...e-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?emc=eta1

Rob, Stalin also supported Lysenko's theories of plant biology and found others to "prove" his claims, but SCIENCE eventually won out. How? Through testing, re testing and peer review.
That is how science works.

Can anyone find any proof that Casey has the degrees he claims?

It is interesting that I have never said anything about what my thoughts and opinions are regarding what the climate is doing or will do.

All I have questioned are the credentials of Mr. Casey.

Well here were I live Feb 2015 is shaping up to be the coldest since they been keeping records- and its not going to warm up any time soon! We are running a good 15 to 20 deg below normal! We need temps to get to around 45 to 50 and then drop back down to freezing, so the Sugar Maples sap starts to run, so the trees can be tapped and the sap rendered down to Maple Syrup- after all its really all about Pancakes and Waffles not Al Gore and his Ponzi scheme of carbon credits! Last year was a bust for the local guys, stayed to cold the whole time!

Ah yes... just flip on channel 2, and you pretty much knew if it was worth getting on 6 meters.

I can't help but wonder who Isaac Newton's peer reviewers were? Unlike some, I don't have a lot of faith in that system. Note for example that most of the peer reviewers for articles on climate change were "warmists" who conspired to keep articles critical of their position out of print. And I've seen some perfectly awful "research" accepted for publication or presentation. I don't think the evidence supports the notion that peer review is very beneficial.

Does the solar cycle affect our climate? Perhaps. I don't think Casey is alone in his beliefs. I also don't think that the correlation is good enough to support the hypothesis. If you look at sunspot activity, there was a minimum around 1000 AD, which was a warm period. So I think Casey's theory is maybe a bit more credible than the warmist computer models, which have failed utterly. That's setting the bar pretty low.

Yet another hypothesis is that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, which in turn affects the albedo of the planet. (That's albedo. Libido is something quite different.) Some think that our solar system was in a region of space with more cosmic ray activity, and that produced The Little Ice Age. I don't know how you'd prove that, but it's an interesting hypothesis.

Aaaaahh the ole' fallacy ad Stalinum (a variation of the better konwn fallacy ad Hitlerimun). I don't know whether peer review had anything to do with disproving Lyskenko's claims. It may well have. But that is beside the point. Often times, peer review works (quite perversely) to stultify and ossify scientific discovery by simply affirming the prejudices of those who wield the power of (peer) review. Of course science works through testing and proving (or disproving). That is obvious, but again quite beside the point. The fact that Casey's work has not been peer reviewed does not mean it has been disproved. Indeed, it tells us nothing about its scientific validity. The scientific and empirical validity of a theory is not established by whether others in the field (peers) find it agreeable. Rather, it's scientific validity is established by whether or not it is true. The fact that an article or theory is "peer reviewed" might provide some assurance as to its rigor (and ultimately its truth), but the fact that a theory has not been peer reviewed is no evidence whatsoever that it is one wit less scientifically or empirically valid than a competing theory that has passed peer reviewed. That question can only be answered by examining the supporting evidence, the rigorousness of the testing, and the logical validity and coherence of they theory itself (among other things). A theory is not invalid or lacking in empirical rigor simply because it has not been peer reviewed. (Especially in a field such as climate science which has been so heavily politicized). Put another way "absence of evidence (lack of peer review) is not evidence of absence" (evidence that a theory is not scientifically sound).

Jordan

And I ask once again, what are Casey's credentials and where did he come from?
You guys seem to prove my premise that you have an opinion and found someone who supports that opinion so you will defend him no matter what.

You give arguments why you disagree with peer review and the scientific ideal, but you have yet to show that the guy has validity other than that you agree with his opinions.

Again I have made no opinion about climate, only that I question why you think Mr. Casey is legitimate other than he supports your opinion.

If his credentials and where he came from are relevant to you, then look them up! The fact that others find his arguments compelling in no way burdens them to convince you.

Finally, nowhere did I defend Casey. I merely pointed out the logical fallacy in your criticsm of his theory (lack of peer review).

Jordan

The Greeks had a pretty good hierarchy of the quality of information:

Authority/opinion are the lowest quality information.

If authority/opinion conflict with sound analysis, analysis wins. Analysis is better than authority/opinion.

If the actual data conflict with sound analysis, the data win. Actual data is better than analysis. Data rules.

An appeal to credentials is an appeal to authority/opinion. It is the lowest form of information, and the most easily overcome. If Casey's data and analysis are good, that's all that counts.

I haven't read him, and have no opinion on whether or not he's right. I do think he has an interesting hypothesis.

If he has no credentials, but his data and analysis are sound, the credentials don't matter. Only the quality of the science matters.

I know nothing of Mr. Casey or what he wrote but do know that peer review does not address the correctness of the conclusions but rather does address whether the research was conducted and reported properly.

All I know is that none of us are getting out of this (life) alive.

Speak for yourself, Scott. I'm working on it. Check back with me in 50 or so.

Extremely well said Denton. Gonna cut and past that one.

And how would someone without any training in the field produce sound data and analysis?

Two faulty assumptions: (1) that Casey has no relevant training and (2) that a person cannot produce sound data and analysis without some sort of (formal)training (or an academic degree). The history of the world is full of stories of "laypersons" who confounded experts and the recieved wisdom of their day with novel theories and conclusions that others had been unable to see. In any event, Casey has plenty of credentials so the point is prolly moot.

With peer review it's sometimes hard to tell where science ends and politics start, witness global warming. Or Einstein's General Relativity for that matter. Everyone has an ox to gore and it's natural to want to defend it. Still skepticism is good, even Feynman did not claim quantum electrodynamics was complete even though theory agrees with experimental results with exquisite precision (so far). One problem with this long term stuff is you're looking backward rather than setting up an experiment and looking forward. That brings in a lot of assumptions.

And I love computer simulations, why there have been warnings from respected design engineers all along not to trust things like Spice. Even if you build your own (fun with Excel ) there's an overpowering urge to tweak constants until the results begin to look like what you expected. Then when you prototype you go, "What the hell??" Don't know but I suspect that and imprecise assumptions is what happened with the "hocky stick" result.

Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

If you are not familiar with this book, then you do not understand the nature of scientific "consensus."

If you have read the book, you understand full well what is going on with the "consensus" agendas.