Tag: AGW/CC

Rights roundup

Climate Data Rigged by U.S. Government?

Yet another smoking gun in the fraud-filled field of “climate science”
has been discovered and this one appears to be even more damning than
the hockey-stick chart, “hide the decline,” and the attempt by U.K.
government scientists to prevent others from replicating their work.

Bipartisan Renegade Bureaucracy

Republicans will be tempted to blame the recent IRS and NSA scandals on the Obama Administration. After all, Obama is closely and personally tied to both of them. The IRS audits of the Tea Party and other organizations and individuals followed Obama’s imitation of Henry II calling for the murder of Thomas Becket: “Will no one audit these turbulent critics?” That’s taking considerable liberties with the paraphrasing, but I don’t recall many previous presidents “joking” about siccing the IRS on their political opponents.

Granted, Bill Clinton used to do it too, but at least he didn’t single out the targets in public beforehand.

I see a fraud

Serial global warming scammer Michael Mann calls for the politicization of science:

It
is not an uncommon view among scientists that we potentially compromise
our objectivity if we choose to wade into policy matters or the
societal implications of our work. And it would be problematic if our
views on policy somehow influenced the way we went about doing our
science. But there is nothing inappropriate at all about drawing on our
scientific knowledge to speak out about the very real implications of
our research.

My
colleague Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who died in 2010,
used to say that being a scientist-advocate is not an oxymoron. Just
because we are scientists does not mean that we should check our
citizenship at the door of a public meeting, he would explain. The New
Republic once called him a “scientific pugilist” for advocating a
forceful approach to global warming. But fighting for scientific truth
and an informed debate is nothing to apologize for.

If
scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum
that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term
self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to
participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to
ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the
risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to
society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat.

Actually, I welcome this development. It should completely destroy whatever vestiges of respect the average man holds for scientists. I mean, for a scientist who makes his living selling global warming in return for research grants to openly claim that it is a problem for those with short-term self-interests to engage in the public debate, well, we’re clearly not dealing with rocket scientists here.

Every time an idiot “climate scientist” calls for socialism in the name of science, a little more unwarranted regard for science is lost. And this is before the inevitable announcement that Mann and the 97 percent of climate scientists are shown conclusively to be wrong and the “fringe minority of our populace” is proven that its rejection of their consensus was not, in fact, irrational, but correct.

Unlike the socialists, the global warmists don’t have 100 years to obfuscate and explain away their failures. They have 10 more years, 20 at most. And we can hope, by then, that “because science” will have become irrevocably tarnished to the point that it is recognized as the logical fallacy it is.

Hey warmists

Tell you what. We’ll stop rubbing your face in the unseasonably cold WEATHER this winter just as soon as you stop trying to claim that unseasonably hot WEATHER proves the existence of global climate change.

We understand that one day is not a trend. We understand the difference between weather and climate. But, you seem to have forgotten that we’ve been listening to you babble about how one hot day in August means OMFG POLAR BEARS ARE DROWNING AND LOUISVILLE WILL BE BEACHFRONT AND WE’LL HAVE NO ICE FOR OUR MARGARITAS EVER AGAIN!

And when a ship full of moronic “climate scientists” gets stuck in supposedly nonexistent ice, understand that we’re going to give you some stick. Just take it with good humor for a change. I mean, it’s a big fat slow pitch just hanging over home plate. Of course we’re going to knock that sucker out of the park.

The perils of global warming

Antarctica rescue: Xue Long calls for help after becoming stuck while trying to help Akademik Shokalskiy.

And they say that God doesn’t have a sense of humor. Tell us more about that scientific consensus. That frozen, scientific consensus in need of rescue because it is stuck in the ice.

Well, the “science” is settled, after all

The great hallmark of science is silencing all dissenting voices, right?

A content editor on Reddit’s science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven’t done the same.

“About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers,” Reddit content editor Nathan Allen wrote in grist. “When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.”

Allen explains that climate change became an ironically heated topic among commenters on Reddit’s science forum, /r/science, which he described as “a window into the Ivory Tower” for “non-scientists” to connect with experts like himself.

Climate-change believers accused skeptics of being bought out by “big oil,” while the skeptics accused believers of being on the take from “big green.”

Despite the provocative comments on both sides described by Allen, and Reddit’s reputation as “passionately dedicated to free speech,” the self-described “PhD chemist” decided it was time for the skeptics to go.

“After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor,” Allen said. “As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their ‘skepticism’ on climate change.”

Do these global warming idiots ever go outside? When record lows are being set all over the world and every climate model they’ve ever cited has been spectacularly wrong, you would think that they would at least consider the possibility that their assumptions are incorrect.

By the time the global warming charade finally gives up the ghost, scientists are going to be considered about as credible as used car salesmen. Global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it is less scientific than “scientific socialism” and is even more easily seen to be obvious nonsense by the layman.

What’s amazing is that half the people who applaud this sort of thing will also tell you that the Catholic Church forcing Galileo to recant was the worst crime in human history. Which would seem puzzling until one recalls MPAI. At this point, I suspect a new Ice Age is probably more likely than genuine global warming.

The philosophical failure of science

If he’s not careful, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Scientists is going to round up James Delingpole for excess public brutality. His demolition of the BBC and its so-called science experts borders on pure sadism:

The Beeb constantly resorts to ‘experts’ whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid

‘Well, you’re arguing facts against opinions. OK, I
mean, the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has rocketed
up since the Industrial Revolution, and continues to rocket up, is a
fact. Now, it’s so much a fact that even the climate change deniers look
away from it and don’t deny it.’
— Professor Steve Jones, Feedback, BBC Radio 4, 18 October

Have a look at that last sentence. It represents such a cherishably
stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble,
fallacious, dishonest and misleading argument that if it turned out the
speaker in question was a professor of logic or philosophy you really
might want to shoot yourself in despair.

Can you see what the problem is? Let me explain. This angry professor
character wants us to believe that there are people called ‘climate
change deniers’ who are so far outside the pale of reasonable discourse
that even when they are right it’s another sign of just how wrong they
are.

Atmospheric CO2 has been rising since the Industrial
Revolution, Jones is telling us, but those pesky deniers are so slippery
that they refuse to deny this fact. If they did, presumably, it would
make Jones’s job a lot easier because then he’d be able to provide a
clear example of these wrong ‘opinions’ deniers supposedly hold.
Apparently, though, Jones is unable to produce such a clear example. So
instead he has to fabricate one and — in the very next breath — to
discount it by conceding that actually this is a point on which ‘even’
the ‘deniers’ agree.

It’s a bad sign for the state of science when the average anklebiting blog troll can produce arguments that are more coherent, credible, and convincing than the official mouthpieces of scientific consensus. But then, that’s what happens when scientists show they are more dedicated to scientistry than scientody.

Appeal to authority are inherently problematic. But appealing to the climatological authority of a biologist whose specialty is snails? It requires years of J-school to produce that quixotic form of genius.

CERN’s Research Director on the climate debate

Unlike the climate “scientists” and their political defenders, the physicist Pierre Darriulat considers the climate debate and finds there is both reason and justice underlying the charges of scientifically unethical behavior made by the AGW/CC skeptics:

A third category of posts found in the climate science blogs is from people interested in the economical and political dimension of the debate and from people interested in its social and human dimension. Those having financial, economical or political interests are among the most passionate and biased participants and their contributions are not very constructive – except in a few instances – and usually do not help much in raising the level of the debate.

Those who find an interest in the sociological dimension of the debate are much more interesting to me. It is indeed something new, and likely to be of unprecedented importance, to have a public debate on science-related questions that are of major relevance to our future on such a large scale. It seems to me to be overlooked – or at least insufficiently appreciated ­– by the establishment, such as academies of sciences, learned societies, editorial boards of major science journals, mass media, etc. The so-called “skeptics” often claim that they are better scientifically minded, meaning having a better sense of scientific ethic than the so-called “warmists” and I think that any neutral observer must recognize that they have a point there.

After having sorted the wheat from the chaff – which is relatively easy but obviously considered as criminal by the chaff – one is left with a very respectable and informative set of statements, which simply cannot be ignored. The politization of the debate has undeniably resulted in unscientific practices. The difficulty to publish a case that dissents from orthodoxy is real. I have refereed many articles for several journals and I know that there is always some unconscious subjectivity in our judgement, well-known authors obviously enjoying a favourable prejudice.

I have also experienced myself, when having changed field from a domain where I was well known to a new one where I was unknown, that it takes time to be accepted by the new community and by the referee who evaluates your article – one to two years. The present machinery of our system of social interactions is not prepared to properly handle the new situation. How to depart from the black and white segregation of clans such as warmists, activists, alarmists, deniers, skeptics, etc, some publishing in Internet, some in traditional scientific journals, some in popular mass media? Sociologists are rightly delighted to witness what is happening and to see there a very rich ground for their investigations….

Something that strikes me is the parallel between the way the climate
debate is received by the general public and the way the nuclear debate
has been. I am neither pro- nor anti-nuclear but I understand
reasonably well the issues that are at stake. In the nuclear case purely
emotional and irrational arguments have been exploited by green
activists up to a point where several countries have now banned nuclear
energy. In the climate case, the green activists are with the
establishement rather than being against, as they were in the nuclear
case. But this is almost irrelevant.

What I am witnessing is the same arrogance in the establishment, the
same irrational and emotional fear in the general public, amplified by a
majority of popular media. In both cases, wrong decisions are being
taken under the pressure of political and financial interests. What is
completely new, however, is the existence, with Internet, of a forum in
which the debate is taking place on a very large scale. Obviously, as
few people read these blogs as those who read the scientific
litterature, the majority relies on newspapers and television for their
information. Yet, somehow, it seems to me that the debate that is going
on there contains enough popular wisdom to mark a change in our practice
of communicating, exerting democracy and taking decisions and deserves
serious attention.

What is most striking to me is the total hypocrisy of the warmists. They religiously apply the genetic fallacy to every anti-warmist site and scientist, while stubbornly proclaiming their faith in the pure devotion to science of well-funded institutions and individuals blithely, and in many cases, nonsensically, proclaiming the IPCC party line.  Either the genetic fallacy applies to both sides equally or it does not; given that it is an identified logical fallacy, I would suggest that it should not be applied to either side and the science, such as it is, should stand or fall on the basis of its own successes and failures.

Why those who support the IPCC agenda refuse to engage on those grounds, I leave up to the reader. Being an elite member of the scientific establishment, I think Mr. Darriulat is perhaps a little too ready to excuse its observable failings.

A parody of scientody

“Hilarious incoherence” in the latest IPCC report summary:

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

Real scientists don’t think much of the scientistry that is an obvious parody of scientody. Nor does Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, as he declares it to be “mumbo-jumbo”:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the
first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation.
Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a
politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science
into disrepute.

Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading
scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that
an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded
that there were “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s
assessment process”, and that “significant improvements” were needed. It
also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence in
some statements for which there is little evidence”.

Since then, little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like
its predecessor.

95 percent certain!

This is good.  We’ve now got it on record that modern science is 95 percent fiction:

In its latest and most comprehensive report on the state of the climate, the
IPCC cautioned that change since the mid-20th century has taken place at a
rate “unprecedented over decades to millennia”.

The panel said it was 95 per cent certain that mankind had been the “dominant
cause” of climate change since the 1950s and issued an urgent warning for
governments to act fast to avoid a 2C rise in temperatures above
pre-industrial levels before the end of this century.

Scientistry has staked its reputation on global warming. The next decade should suffice to put a stake all the way through it.  My advice is to get everyone you know who is an annoying science fetishist to put down their certain faith in science in writing.

We’ve already got PZ Myers on record. We’ve already got Richard Dawkins on record. Get every punk evolutionist and Feynman idolatrist and God Delusion-thumping atheist on record too.

And in a few years we’ll put their credibility as well as their scientistic faith on spikes in public when the obvious falsehood of it all can no longer be concealed or explained away.

The “global warming” cover-up

And here we have an excellent example explaining why modern scientistry is corrupted and why science-skeptics are more than justified in remaining skeptical of various government-funded “scientific” consensuses:

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The politicians justified their attempt to sweep the problematic observations that destroy the hypothesis due to their “fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change”.  As they should. Isn’t declaring the hypothesis to be unsupported by the evidence exactly what scientists are supposed to do when the predictive models fail and the observations don’t support the hypothesis?

The skeptics are the real scientists, not the corrupt professionals who practice scientistry rather than scientody and serve as the mouthpieces for power-mad politicians.