Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oh dear. They may have murdered AGW

Rate this topic


Maarten

Recommended Posts

This panel discussion featuring Keith Lockitch and Willie Soon: critique of climate change science The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

And this video

places alarmist claims in a historical perspective.

Excellent video. Yes, they flattened out the Midieval warming period, but I'd wondered what they would do about the even warmer Roman period prior, and the very, very long range history. Remember, the Australian geologist Bob Carter gave a lecture on this.

Here it is:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm a little skeptical of the whole climategate thing, but so far there hasn't been much evidence that forgery is false
Not sure what you mean by this. Scientists and folks like those who wrote the article you linked to try to step back to the position that regardless of the fraud, global warming is taking place. However, that is a silly position, for the following reason: given the history of the world, one would expect a certain slow warming or cooling trend at any point. The question only becomes: over what period, and how significant? So, the notion that global warming is taking place is actually quite meaningless if one does not specify a time-scale; secondly, it is quite harmless if one does not specify a degree.

Certain "scientists", like Mann and Jones clearly tried to stress the data-series that showed a higher degree of warming, and to hide the data-series that showed lower warming, and cooling. This is not how real scientists approach such issues. Real scientists don't discard contradictory evidence. They try to figure out what went wrong. Nor can one take five different data-series and get the average of them all: that makes no sense, because there could be something about the very approach of four of them that causes them to be similar, and so different from the 5th. So, one asks questions about those underlying causes. Instead, these scientists were more interested in erasing parts of the data-series that did not fit their pre-conceived notion.

If one digs into the so-called consensus, one will find that quite a few scientists agree that there has been some degree of warming if we look back a few hundred years. However, most also agree that this has happened before in the history of the earth, and that it has been even warmer than this. However, the more activist "scientists" talk about how they can get rid of depictions of previous warmings. Is this science or politics? There is no consensus on whether human beings contributed in any significant way to the recent warming: many scientists hold that they did not, and many other scientists also hold that any contribution has been minor. Neither is there a consensus about how this will develop into the future. Some scientists postulate an additive loop where effects get amplified and become progressively worse, while others postulate exactly the opposite: a negative feedback that muffles the effect. Further, even if the worst temperature-fears of the worse data-fudgers were to be realized (which they most certainly will not), there is no consensus about the actual consequences that will effect human beings.

Instead, of addressing these multiple layers of dispute, when caught with their pants down, these "scientists" (and their enabler journalists) fall back on the little irrelvant nugget that most scientists agree that the average temperature has been increasing ever so slightly in the last few hundred years. I ask you this: are flat lines normal in nature?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a quote on the sidebar of the last clip I linked to, which is rather fitting:

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Even though the facts which prove this to be so are brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

Guess who said that?

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf , vol.1, ch. 10, 1925

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that irks me is that they haven't killed Global Warming, like the Frankenstein Monster it is still alive. What has been killed is the concept that science is above politics and that scientists respect data above all. Unfortunately it's the scientific method that is being killed, and "scientists" are doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my doubts that ClimateGate will do anything to squelch the panic among the environmentalists, because the facts were never on their side anyhow. It's all hysteria based upon changes in the climate that can't be predicted with any accuracy out past a few days to a week anyhow. They were never about the facts, just a belief that man is destroying the earth. What ClimateGate will do for anyone still looking at the facts is to give them concern that climate predictions were not based upon the facts, that it is all just made up. This will influence the borderline people who thought the facts were on the side of global catastrophe, but without getting a hearing in the main stream media (from what I've heard) for many it will remain a dirty little secret, even though it is the worst scientific scandal possibly for the past century. You have to understand that reason was never on their side in the first place, and so it is not surprising to find out that the facts were not on their side, and never were. It's a big scandal, but it will pass, and the big issue will be what is your philosophy of man -- is he a destroyer or a creator? I think this will settle the issue. Of course, for those of us going by the facts, ClimateGate gives us more fuel for the fire against the global disaster hysteria. Bottom line is they don't have anything on their side, just an unquestioned belief that man is the cause of everything bad that happens to the earth. Keep hammering away at them, and keep pointing to ClimateGate because there will be people swayed by the facts. Certainly legislators ought to pause before enacting CO2 credits (taxes) and other anti-man-made "pollutants", because the facts are not on their side, but I've never been convinced the facts hold sway for legislators on the Left anyhow, not among the Global Warming / Climate Change crowd. Yaron Brook compared it to a religion, and I'd say he's right because it is not a scientific study of the earth and the global climate. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out. The facts are on our side and we need to speak that loudly and clearly. Uphold individual rights -- of man, the rational animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that irks me is that they haven't killed Global Warming, like the Frankenstein Monster it is still alive. What has been killed is the concept that science is above politics and that scientists respect data above all. Unfortunately it's the scientific method that is being killed, and "scientists" are doing it.

This is my fear as well. Even I have real suspicion of all science now. To be sure, I trust science-qua-science, it's the way it is being practiced today that I have my doubts about.

But, listen, if you are listening to the msm only, then you are going to be missing the big counter movement that is happening. This may not be happening elsewhere in the world, but it's certainly happening in America. I have also heard that science magazines and organizations are being put under more pressure from their members concerning this issue, so things are happening behind the scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my fear as well. Even I have real suspicion of all science now. To be sure, I trust science-qua-science, it's the way it is being practiced today that I have my doubts about.

One has to be careful not to fall into hasty generalizations as most scientists are honest. Scientific method is not dying. Climate research got politicized and corrupted and now we have resulting cleansing period. Good thing is that from now on any claims about global climate changes are going to be more scrutinized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that irks me is that they haven't killed Global Warming, like the Frankenstein Monster it is still alive. What has been killed is the concept that science is above politics and that scientists respect data above all. Unfortunately it's the scientific method that is being killed, and "scientists" are doing it.

In order to kill Global Warming, people need to understand why the scam came into existence in the first place.

A link was provided earlier to a site with James Phogan's articles, and I read the following:

The Malthusian Specter

Yes, there's lots of short-term opportunism in the form of cashing in on carbon credits, jumping on bandwagons to screw the competition, and suchlike. But beneath all that, the common ideological factor that overrides objectivity and commands belief rightly described as religious fervor, is, in two words, population control. Or at least, an attempt to impose it. For what all the scare stories and the calls for a quasi-religious crusade to accept the necessity of self-sacrifice and lower quality of life to save the planet provide a pretext for is an agenda to control the supply of energy and price it beyond the means of most people in all but rationed amounts.

Now, he thinks it's population control and energy rationing, but I think that those aims are really further means to the real end, which is preparation for war. Indeed this entire past century virtually constantly our nations have been spending increasing amounts on waging war on foreign soil.

And war is expensive. And not just financially. People are tiring of the current batch of wars. But if everything becomes more expensive, that will cause even higher unemployment as corporate wallets thin and small businesses go bankrupt. When civilian jobs become scarce, but the armed forces is calling for more recruits, enlistment rises. This solves several problems at once - reducing future pension & health care costs while at the same time assuaging the big war business that seems to have its thumb on the necks of top government officials.

This form of government is a giant failure.

In order to get rid of the AGW scam and prevent it being perpetrated any further, people will need to re-examine a lot of their most cherished beliefs about how society ought to function and the purpose of government. They need to understand why the system of taxation is inherently wrong. They need to understand why the system of "majority vote = right to enslave" is anti-human and anti-life. There is so much they need to understand in order to reject the status quo which otherwise will simply continue to seek funding from the frightened masses.

I really think this whole thing was put into motion to set up a situation to achieve several parallel aims. 1. To provide more tax revenue; 2. to gut and render unpromising the domestic job market so that a greater number of eligible people would seek employment with the armed forces, with the added bonus of thinning the domestic herd. That would take care of both the need to implement a draft and the need to reduce the numbers of likely future pensioners. The windfall taxes are already needed to pay for all the regular welfare & gov't programs that are on the verge of bankruptcy. And that in my view is the real reason the government started the process way back when and why political pressure was exerted to obtain the "science" that supported the proposition. The government could see it was heading for bankruptcy. And so, the elected leaders will continue to insist that despite ample proof of the folly of AGW, we must "all" nevertheless proceed with the implementation of the Cap & Trade programs/tax plans etc. as if the fraud had not been revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've run into the Population control issue as well. Ref this blog post of mine, the fourth item in the horror file calls for a global law akin to China's one child law.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these people are anti-man.

I just wanted to add that I personally don't believe all scientists or even a majority of them would behave as these Climate fakers have.

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Zip, that Chinese law limiting couples to 1 child each is what I was thinking of with the term "population control" and it occurred to me later that making wars and shipping people off to fight them are also forms of population control.

Grames, I had obviously not heard of the man before. Didn't realize the P was a middle initial.

And with all the billions being spent to fight a war on terror, it seems none of them realize they are sowing terror on the domestic front with the climate change doomsday scenarios as well as the proposals to "fight" climate change. Clearly the more potent terrorists are right here at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to be careful not to fall into hasty generalizations as most scientists are honest. Scientific method is not dying. Climate research got politicized and corrupted and now we have resulting cleansing period. Good thing is that from now on any claims about global climate changes are going to be more scrutinized.

I'm not saying that all of science is bad, just that I'm more wary of it now. And it's not just the whole sale corruption of climate science, it's other fields as well, such as medical science and physics that concern me. There is a lot of questionable work out there.

I think what really concerns me is government science. I've seen so much evidence of corruption there, as expressed by scientists in various fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Long ago I heard someone (my boss!) say global warming was phony science "just like the earth being billions of years old" Now of course he almost certainly feels vindicated, and is just waiting for "old earth gate" to break. Of course we know that won't be happening.

Scientists pulling this sort of crap call *all* science into question, as far as most people are concerned, and they risk a backlash against *all* scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIT held a debate on "climate gate". It is long (almost 2 hours), but speakers 3 and 4, Judith and Stephen are not scientists and are highly "skippable". So, one has two scientists who are pro-AGW (Kerry Emanuel and Ron Prinn) and one who is a "skeptic" (Richard Lindzen).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for these links, sNerd. I'm immersing myself in this topic. It may be futile, but I'm engaging as many as I can in the Facebook poll on the topic of "is climate change a problem?" The true Al Gore disciple surfaces now and again, when a person supportive of the catastrophic climate change position announces she will no longer discuss the topic with me. lol.

Sad but true, the reveal of the falsehoods in the data isn't swaying those who want to believe in disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that all of science is bad, just that I'm more wary of it now. And it's not just the whole sale corruption of climate science, it's other fields as well, such as medical science and physics that concern me. There is a lot of questionable work out there.

I think what really concerns me is government science. I've seen so much evidence of corruption there, as expressed by scientists in various fields.

Questionable and government funding walk together hand in hand.

The most obvious corruption is that what is true becomes less important than what will get funding.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionable and government funding walk together hand in hand.

The most obvious corruption is that what is true becomes less important than what will get funding.

Contrast that to the private sector, where the profit motive demands that researchers provide real, observable, measurable results. If your research is not connected to reality, you're going to lose.

The public sector has none of that. Research may or may not be connected to reality, depending on the policy that is trying to be supported by the research.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...