Anthropogenic global warming has been a dubious proposition from the outset to anyone with the slightest understanding of social science as it pertains to coercive government, science “science,” and the nexus of the two. Even if you didn’t read about it elsewhere (and there were places where you could), you could (and should) have easily thought up the evil plot in the whole thing.
Last week, Lilburne brought this Blog the report many of us have been waiting for for years: It’s all a put-up job.
But way back (it seems so long ago) in 2006, though, the Daily Articles of this site were graced by a put-up job by none other than myself, titled “How to Achieve Scientific Consensus,” it being an explicitly phony “e-mail” to Warming Denialist Richard Lindzen explaining how his failure to cooperate in the Great Professional Project of Warming Alarmism was messing up not only his career, but that of many of his colleagues.
I find it makes gratifying reading in light of the recent exposure of the global warming boondoggle.
But then, I like my own stuff. Hope you do, too, at least in this case.
{ 30 comments }
“Anthropogenic global warming has been a dubious proposition from the outset to anyone with the slightest understanding of social science”
Fail hard. Anthropogenic global warming has not been a particularly dubious proposition to anyone with the slightest understanding of ACTUAL science. Like, oh I don’t know. Physics. Control theory. Math. That kind of thing. That’s the problem with the “social sciences”: people versed in those actually believe that a problem goes away if you are optimistic about it.
“Lilburne brought this Blog the report many of us have been waiting for for years: It’s all a put-up job.”
Wow, leaking e-mails proving it’s a put-up job and showing we have the all-powerful cabal of scientists pulling the wool over our eyes from their meteorlogical world-domination center hidden under an extinct volcano.
And Again for those that missed the posting:
Amazing!
The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.
I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.
Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?
IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you’re in denial, and you stand for no moral principles.
On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..
Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn’t have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up.
Facepalmer is right you know. Who is Joseph Potts? Where did he get his PhD?
By the way, I’m having great fun with this in the blogs. Here’s something I just recently posted ….. I’m sorry, but he’s a climate-gate denier. The evidence is overwhelming, it is irrefutable, the experts all agree, the consensus is unanimous. There can be no legitimate dissent, the debate is closed. Climate change fraud is real. ….. sound familiar
ehmoran
While you are correct, I think you are wasting your time. AGW is a religion, and you are asking people to renounce their faith.
Remember this timeless story form Hans Christian Andersen:
Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: “Look at the Emperor’s new clothes. They’re beautiful!”
“What a marvellous train!”
“And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!” They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.
A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
“The Emperor is naked,” he said.
“Fool!” his father reprimanded, running after him. “Don’t talk nonsense!” He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy’s remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
“The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It’s true!”
The Emperor realized that the people were right and felt very uncomfortable, but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn’t see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood strutting on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.
The moral of the story is not that the Emperor was naked, but what he did when he found out he was naked.
“Fail hard. Anthropogenic global warming has not been a particularly dubious proposition to anyone with the slightest understanding of ACTUAL science. Like, oh I don’t know. Physics. Control theory. Math. That kind of thing. That’s the problem with the “social sciences”: people versed in those actually believe that a problem goes away if you are optimistic about it.”
Stop asserting, begin proving. Until then it is you who “fails” hard. Appeal-to-authority fruitloop. Who is Fourier btw? Another pissant gnat dimwit serioso loser type from Stato?
Walt D,
Very, very well said…….
“That’s the problem with the “social sciences”: people versed in those actually believe that a problem goes away if you are optimistic about it.”
Oh and btw the problem with scientistic fruitloops is the precise opposite, with their static view of the world. Sad, really, to be like braindead robots.
Re: Facepalmer,
Anthropogenic global warming has not been a particularly dubious proposition to anyone with the slightest understanding of ACTUAL science.
There are quite a few people who practice science (and statistical analysis) that have found the allegations for AGW sufficiently dubious to make your assertion incorrect.
That’s the problem with the “social sciences”: people versed in those actually believe that a problem goes away if you are optimistic about it.
That’s an unsubstantiated assertion, and quite ignorant to boot.
Wow, leaking e-mails proving it’s a put-up job and showing we have the all-powerful cabal of scientists pulling the wool over our eyes from their meteorlogical [sic] world-domination center hidden under an extinct volcano.
No, it showed a group of scientists already bought to a theory would not accept contradictory data shredding their models or dissenting views throwing the monkey wrench on their views. It is not the first time it has happened – Trofim Lysenko comes to mind.
I laughed so hard, I think I gave myself an ulcer.
Anyone who knows anything about statistical modeling has known for a long time that AGW models were fraught with a large amount of prediction error, and needed “adjustment terms” or “tuning parameters” to make them consistent with the observed record. Instead of relying on Al Gore, the “scientific consensus”, or the “moral authority” of the UN (as illiterates like facepalmer seem to have done), I downloaded the full IPCC and READ IT! I run statistical analyses for a living, and I saw this train-wreck coming as far back as 2004.
Yup, statistics is all about fitting data to your prior beliefs.
They’re moderated by none other than Hands Her Man Hop himself.
That’s why all the homophobic and cranky stuff gets by.
Who is Fourier btw?
He’s channeling Charles Fourier
Why separate AGW from natural global warming? If the globe is warming then it doesn’t matter if it’s natural or artificial as the effects will be the same.
“If the globe is warming then it doesn’t matter if it’s natural or artificial as the effects will be the same.”
Does Cap n Scam do anything about “natural warming”? If not, then why have it.
The math seems to serve the same purpose as in Keynesian economics; to pretend robustness.
If you claim CO2 causes warming, you should prove that causation. I have yet to see an experiment and proper chemical or physical theory doing that. The closest I found showed only a very minor influence. Also the IPPC ignores the large number of historical CO2 measurements by chemists etc. since about 1820, which show a rather high volatility and indicate that CO2 level are actually lagging temperatures by about 5 years.
Regression seems to be one of the most abused mathematical tools of our time. If you look at studies also in other fields, you get the impression that “correlation does not prove causation” is usually paid very little attention to.
Fail hard. Anthropogenic global warming has not been a particularly dubious proposition to anyone with the slightest understanding of ACTUAL science. Like, oh I don’t know. Physics. Control theory. Math. That kind of thing.
I spent several years of my life as a researcher in “that sort of thing” and I can tell you that the commonly used models of weather and climate are so primitive, misguided and fundamentally flawed that it astounds me to this day that anyone would make any predictive claims whatsoever based on them.
The level of complexity of the earth’s weather is so great that these models are a total waste of time. There are not enough molecules in the universe to build a computer that can fully model the price of corn. But we’re supposed to believe that Al Gore and his friends have figured out how to analyze the sun, the geosphere, the biosphere, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere all at the same time?
Please.
@Magnus
“…commonly used models of weather and climate are so primitive, misguided and fundamentally flawed …”
Man, they still can’t get the next 48 hours of “climate” right. I totally agree with you.
Again any physicist or mathematician would realize what the IPCC is stating-that they truly understand the complexities(ie schoastic dynamics) of the weather would give way to 100′s of Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine. No one understands schoastic behaviour. If the politicians and public just understood the basic premise of understanding the physics in predicting the weather… no one would take this matter seriously. If the IPCC could generate the following:
1.) Know the state of every molecule and atom in the weather (the energy distribution from space, seas, land, and the solid mass of the Earth) . What I mean by the “state” is the momentum, energy, postion, Boltzman distrubution, … ect.
2.) Have the computational power to undertake such formidable task.
Then, maybe I would begin to take the IPCC seriously.
after less than 1 minute on google…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-2/
Mises must roll in his grave, knowing that his self-proclaimed followers repeatedly prove stupid and ignorant and lazy. Your ignorance of the IPCC exceeds even your ignorance of von Mises.
Yeh, I’d believe what I read on RealClimate.org? Now there’s an HONEST WebSite with principled people.
From a previous post…….
“These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.
On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..”
@Janus Daniels
after less than 1 minute on google…
What is that breathless, self-serving, haughty, substance-free blog post supposed to prove, exactly?
Unfortunately Re(ComplexClimate.org) is not equal to RealClimate.org. Most of what you find at RealCimate.org is purely imaginary!
Having been in research for over 15 years before moving to private industry, I can say that the vast majority of the people involved have no understanding of the philosophy of science, or its history and roots; instead, they thrive by understanding the system that allows them to do research, whether they are honestly or otherwise motivated. I personally think two semesters of philosophy should be mandatory for anyone wishing to study anything….and I’m sticking to my dogma!
Janus, see your problem is spending only 1 minute on Google. This is the sign of a poor scholar.
Anyway thanks for the propaganda from Fenton Communications!
The Truth about RealClimate.org
I don’t know about you but my knowledge of the IPCC is extensive,
Digging up the roots of the IPCC (Spiked, UK)
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Fraser Institute)
Isn’t the IPCC involved with the “Club of Rome”?
von Mises is rolling over in his grave listening to climate science deniers here pretending that the science does not overwhelmingly demonstrate AGW is real.
It’s hard to imagine that you all would all deny the science and relegate yourselves to the sidelines instead of vigorously supporting free market solutions. You have willingly abdicated to let government provide the solutions.
Von Mises would be appalled at how you are dishonoring him.
I have never seen anything that I find convincing other than that 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit of the average yearly temperature rise in the last century may be due to anthropogenic causes. I’ve seen nothing that convinces me that this rise is in any way a problem that requires solutions, free market or otherwise. The problem is not us eco-Holocaust “deniers”. The problem is due to bad science by eco-zealots who are determined to “prove” AGW, whether it actually exists or not, because of their ideological biases. This makes it all too easy for me to be skeptical that even the 0.3 degrees is real.
Mises believed in science, yes. Good science. He also was aware of the fact that some ideologies try to redefine science (Lysenkoism, Nazi genetic theories, etc.) to suit their tastes, and I think he would have had a healthy skepticism about the supposed eco-science that is coming out nowadays. I’m also pretty sure he would not espouse a “solution” to a “problem” until he was sure that it really was a problem, no matter whether the “problem” was economic or environmental, or whether the “solution” was governmental or free market. And he would definitely have taken into consideration the economic impact of the “solution”, which most eco-zealots nowadays devoutly refuse to do.
Try figuring out how you get the Greenhouse Effect without the GreenHouse Cause, and you figure out that there is no GreenHouse Effect. It is actually an Emissitivity Effect which causes an Anti-GreenHouse Effect otherwise known as increased Convection.
Comments on this entry are closed.