Krauthammer Blasts Climate Science Cynicism: “It’s Sort Of The Essence Of The Denial Of Scientific Rigor”

Charles Krauthammer dismantles climate science in one and half minutes.

Krauthammer on Fox News

Click here to see video. Image cropped from clip.

I particularly like the following he said:

To me it’s just plain cynicism to seize upon any event and then to use it as an example of a theory, which is not a way to prove it.”

The problem for the climate scientists is that they have got nothing left but anecdotes and witch-hunting. They are exposing themselves as charlatans. In essence, Krauthammer is calling the whole thing a scam.

7 responses to “Krauthammer Blasts Climate Science Cynicism: “It’s Sort Of The Essence Of The Denial Of Scientific Rigor””

  1. BobW in NC

    Bravo, Charles! Unfortunately, the news media (except possibly Fox) and AGW supporters will be going, “la-la-la…I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

  2. A C Osborn
  3. Jimbo

    They used to tell us that the weather is not the same as the climate. I wonder what changed? 😉

  4. Visiting Physicist

    As an Australian, be assured that I am doing all I can to inform Parliamentarians that emission reduction is a pointless and useless exercise. Many will receive a free copy of my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available late April through Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

    The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture starts with an assumption that there would be isothermal conditions in a troposphere that was free of radiating (so-called “greenhouse”) gases, including water vapour, or free of direct solar radiation.

    There are similar conditions in the Uranus troposphere where there is very little methane except in a layer in the uppermost regions. Virtually all the very weak solar radiation reaching the planet (nearly 30 times the distance from the Sun that Earth is) is absorbed and re-emitted back to space by this methane layer where the temperature is a very cold 60K or so, that being the radiating temperature of the planet. There is no internal energy generation that can be convincingly detected, yet the core is at about 5,000K and the base of the troposphere (where there is no surface being heated by any direct Solar radiation) is hotter than Earth’s surface.

    The existence of isothermal conditions would be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously. Such as state is isentropic, and so the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy for each molecular has a propensity to be equal at all altitudes. This means that there is a temperature gradient, because temperature depends upon the mean kinetic energy, not the gravitational potential energy.

    If there were isothermal conditions (an impossibility) then what is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere above any region? Perhaps you would say something like at least 10 degrees of warming. Hence you would say in a dry desert (with say 0.5% water vapour) the warming would be 5 degrees, but in a rain forest with 4.5% water vapour it might be 45 degrees, making the rainforest 40 degrees hotter than the dry desert.

    Need I say more about this ludicrous travesty of physics?

  5. John F. Hultquist

    All the administration is pushing this;
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26214135
    “John Kerry to urge climate action in Indonesia address”

    Part of a comment I wrote for elsewhere, but it fits here.

    What the issue seems to be is that the current president needs a “legacy” and the expected one, namely The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), sometimes called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but mostly called “Obamacare”, is in shambles. Note the recent delay in implementation of another part of this Act, such that it pushes the problems out beyond the current election cycle.
    Perhaps the One who promised to keep the sea from rising will be more positively remembered than the one who promised if you like your policy and your doctor, you can keep your policy and your doctor. He can be remembered for funding all the pork his big donors want and some of the useful projects already identified.
    Because the climate warming bit isn’t working they have made up new stuff. It is just as wrong but they need some big headlines before the election cycle really kicks in. If this doesn’t help the Pres’ standing in the world and in “the future” – they’ve got nothing.

  6. Will Delson

    “If it proves everything, it proves nothing.” Succinct and wise.