The Science is Far from Settled

While people like Bomber, Nick Smith and John Key think the science is settled and that we must prostrate ourselves before the great god Gaia and pay increased taxes through our ETS to save the whole planet, when the rest of the planet couldn’t give a fat rat’s arse about doing the same, other scientists are setting out discovering that which hasn’t been discovered before about the Earth’s climate.

In other words that the science isn’t settled, far from it, the science as it should be is moving all the time. There was a time when science declared the earth was flat, it was settled, that was that, the earth is flat the science is settled. Some didn’t believe, they were probably called Flat Earth Deniers and ostracised. The problem was for the science is settled brigade is that the Earth wasn’t flat and the deniers were right.

Queue the new science.

From UCSB News: (h/t to David Schnare) UCSB Geologist Discovers Pattern in Earth’s Long-Term Climate Record

(Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– In an analysis of the past 1.2 million years, UC Santa Barbara geologist Lorraine Lisiecki discovered a pattern that connects the regular changes of the Earth’s orbital cycle to changes in the Earth’s climate. The finding is reported in this week’s issue of the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

Lisiecki performed her analysis of climate by examining ocean sediment cores. These cores come from 57 locations around the world. By analyzing sediments, scientists are able to chart the Earth’s climate for millions of years in the past. Lisiecki’s contribution is the linking of the climate record to the history of the Earth’s orbit.

It is known that the Earth’s orbit around the sun changes shape every 100,000 years. The orbit becomes either more round or more elliptical at these intervals. The shape of the orbit is known as its “eccentricity.” A related aspect is the 41,000-year cycle in the tilt of the Earth’s axis.

Glaciation of the Earth also occurs every 100,000 years. Lisiecki found that the timing of changes in climate and eccentricity coincided. “The clear correlation between the timing of the change in orbit and the change in the Earth’s climate is strong evidence of a link between the two,” said Lisiecki. “It is unlikely that these events would not be related to one another.”

Besides finding a link between change in the shape of the orbit and the onset of glaciation, Lisiecki found a surprising correlation. She discovered that the largest glacial cycles occurred during the weakest changes in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit –– and vice versa. She found that the stronger changes in the Earth’s orbit correlated to weaker changes in climate. “This may mean that the Earth’s climate has internal instability in addition to sensitivity to changes in the orbit,” said Lisiecki.

She concludes that the pattern of climate change over the past million years likely involves complicated interactions between different parts of the climate system, as well as three different orbital systems. The first two orbital systems are the orbit’s eccentricity, and tilt. The third is “precession,” or a change in the orientation of the rotation axis.

The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles. Image: wikimedia
The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles. Image: wikimedia

The Climate is far more complicated than the simplistic, mal-adjusted, corrupted data of Mann et al’s now infamous hockey-stick. This latest paper shows that fctors such as Earth’s axis, orbit and Solar Forcing contribute far more than anything else to climate change, and no ETS is ever going to be able to change the Earth’s axis, or orbit.

Is climate changing? Of course it is. Are humans affecting it? Probably, but not by much when you consider just how complex the whole climate/geography/solar relationship is.

If we are now moving into a glaciation phase which happen every 100,000 like clockwork, so to speak then all this global warming hokum will be for naught. It is bollocks, and hokum science, which is far from settled and cannot ever be, that is the point of science.

Right now we have a theory that carbon dioxide from man’s activities causes global warming/cooling. It’s a theory only and hasn’t been proven. There isn’t a theory of gravity but there once was, but Albert Einstein proved the theory that Isaac Newton conceived and thus gravity is a certain, known, measurable proof. It took 200 years to prove newton’s theory, and when it was proved, it was found that Newton was slightly wrong.

Climate Science is but a puppy when compared to the 200 years it took to prove gravity, in fact climate science hasn’t even made it a quarter of the way and is as far from proof than anyone between Newton and Einstein were for proving gravity.

  • oldtimer

    Theres something about smith and hide and key .
    Something that suggests a hidden agenda.

  • axeman

    Today Al Gore will lecture Duke University. Sponsored by the Nicholas School of Environment, the former Vice President will be given a platform to continue ignoring the evidence that Climate Alarmism was a house of cards built upon a fraud. Far from being wiped out, polar bear populations are on the rise. Global sea ice levels have remained constant; we’ve had global cooling for the last decade and no warming for fifteen years. And that’s why the honorable Mr. Gore, the man who would save us from ourselves while using enough energy to make even Limbaugh blush, is censoring student questions and limiting media coverage to the first five minutes of his lecture. This seems to be a common trend among liberals defying reality. They have to control the questions to avoid confronting the truth. If Al Gore was competent and truly believed in his cause, then he should know the content well enough to counter any argument. In reality, it’s all about money. Al Gore is defending unsubstantiated, Alarmist policy because doing so raised his net worth from a paltry $800,000 to nearly $100,000,000 in the seven years after he lost the 2000 election. If Cap & Trade Tax gets forced through Congress, it is rumored he could become the first “climate billionaire.” It pays well to be a cheerleader for Big Environmentalism. But for all his preaching, Gore is startlingly uncommitted to his cause. Air travel is supposedly devastating to our planetary health, yet Gore can’t even bring himself to fly commercial. When he speaks, tickets generally encourage attendees to use public transportation, but Gore arrives in a limo, or three, and has the driver keep the AC running during his talk. We know he has a “home office,” but that hardly justifies using more energy per month than the average family uses each year. It would be a shame if some concerned freshman let it slip that Al Gore isn’t exactly the paradigm of “sustainability.” As such, no questions unless you’re a card-carrying member of the Al Gore fan club.

  • cadae

    Climate science desperately needs to change. To date it has been run by a cosy group of activist ‘scientists’ who barely understand the statistical and computing tools they currently abuse, and who seem philosophically opposed to normal scientific processes and rigour.

    There’s some hope for climate science yet – see the transformation that is starting to happen under pressure from some real statisticians at

    Climate science also needs to clean up the mess in its climate models. Several models cited by the IPCC mis-use computer AI – namely Neural Networks – these are being employed way outside their capabilities and are being fed data that has not been correctly pre-processed.

    Unfortunately, even if climate scientists clean up their act, it’s going to take years for the MSM to give up its love affair with climate catastrophism.

  • axeman

    Secrecy undermines the practice of good science, charges Michael Schrage in an opinion piece published in the Financial Times, and governments need to step in and provide more incentives for open sharing of data.
    “On issues of the greatest importance for public policy, science researchers are less transparent than they should be,” Schrage writes. “That behavior undermines science, policy and public trust.”
    Schrage cites the recent scandal over emails stolen from the computers of climate researchers at the University of East Anglia as an example of the distortions caused by a modern climate of secrecy and competition in science. Although there is no evidence that researchers falsified data as some climate skeptics have alleged, the Associated Press concluded that “One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. … It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method.”
    Schrage also notes that only recently have many U.S. universities begun to require that drug researchers expose financial ties to the companies that make the products they are testing.
    “Too many scientists in academia, industry and government are allowed to get away with concealing or withholding vital information about their data, research methodologies and results,” Schrage writes. “That is unacceptable and must change.”
    Schrage notes that if drug companies were forced to share the results of all studies they conduct on new drugs, and not just positive findings, dangerous drugs would be less likely to be approved or could be pulled from the market sooner.
    As a step toward changing the secretive climate of science, Schrage suggests that public funding, nonprofit status and university certification all be made contingent upon the adoption of certain transparency standards.
    “Why should … taxpayers fund scientists who deliberately delay, obfuscate and deny open access to their research?” he writes.
    “Why should responsible policymakers in America, Europe, Asia and Latin America make decisions affecting people’s health, wealth and future based on opaque and inaccessible science? They should not.”