ClimateGate and the Climatati

[bush_cheney2004]

2) I just returned from a galactic blueplanet radiation emissions conference in the Orion nebula travelling 3.7889 times faster than speed of light by super quanta muonic waves.

Please feel free....

Alas, even with such a fabrication, the round trip would still take about 700 years, as M42 (Orion Nebula) is about 1340 light years away. Even the lay person can spot obvious nonsense, and that includes statistical manipulation of real data and proxies.

Edited December 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Is it a truism or is it the attempt to centralize power?

Problems will always exist. The welfare state has promised to resolve the problems that weren't being resolved by individuals and their companies, has welfare done so and have the problems disappeared? I would say they have exacerbated the problem.

The truth is that you cannot resolve other people's problems for them. They must resolve them themselves. Try and resolve their problems for them and other problems are invented - for YOU to resolve for them.

By asking the question as "has the problem disappeared ?" - you're fixing the dice. Can you solve peoples' problems for them ? No. You can help.

If you look at the world before welfare came into place, you can understand why Communism evolved, and why welfare still is in place in every reasonable democracy.

We can't rely on private individuals and companies to solve wide problems like these on their own.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Hardner

You see, people reveal themselves in what they say.

What does a person really think when he says something like the public knows squat?

If I am misinterpreting what is being said then it would be better expressed more explicitly such general statements refrained from being used.

I have found over the past decade that people who think in terms of the "collective good", the hard core socialists, have some grand vision of there being a land of plenty if there were not so many people around. In their eyes, the enemy is us. Somehow it escapes them that they are a part of us. But I understand now that they believe that most people are stupid and that is definitely not a part of who they are so they exclude themselves from the concept of the general public. Their world is built on ironies, they must appear compassionate because so many others are so stupid, they must lead because others are such sheep, they must tax because others are so greedy, some must die or we will all die. Somehow they are the compassionate and not the stupid, they are the leaders and not the sheep, they are the taxmen and not the taxpayer, and it is never they but someone else who must die to save us all.

If we listen to them and follow their leadership then I will admit they are right - the public is stupid but it would only be because those who believe in the "collective good" like to keep the public ignorant, and especially ignorant of their opinions of the public.

What do you think of a person who says the public knows squat about climate science? The immediate thought is probably that this person must know something about climate science that the public doesn't know. It may be true but he isn't expressing anything that ameliorates the stupidity of the public, he is just making a blanket statement that improves his position and attempts to limit anyone that may have any feelings of not being fully informed on the subject. It's a kind of bullying tactic. Fortunately, there are members of the public that do know more than squat and are not simply parroting a position without knowing squat.

The public is neither stupid, nor wise, but sometimes one and sometimes the other and mostly in between. Society has to be modeled around the fact that this duality exists:

The public isn't truly "public" and isn't really "the massees". Our citizenry doesn't know what they should know in all cases, but they must be given the power to control their own destiny.

Discussions that revolve around "the public is stupid" or "the public knows better" tend to become circular in my opinion. I have seen people (especially in arguments about democracy) argue both sides, depending on how the public supported their pet issues.

[Michael Hardner]

The alarmists are getting ever more frantic - they know the gig is almost up. Here's how Copenhagen opened up:

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091207/world/un_climate_warming

Assertions of global conspiracy aren't helpful, even if the theory of AGW is completely false.

[Riverwind]

The problem with general Web forums vs "science" though is that anybody can write absolutely anything with no consequence - whatsoever.

And the problem with climate science is anyone can write anything they want with no consequence as long as it supports the alarmist agenda.

What you fail to understand is our scientific institutions have failed us and it does not make a difference what you think of the web as means for scientific discussion. The problem is the current peer review system cannot be trusted.

In any case, some scientists have woken up and recognized that the days of toiling in the ivory tower are coming to an end.

The public may not be able to follow radiation physics, but they can follow an argument; they may not be able to describe fluid dynamics using mathematics, but they can recognise evasiveness when they see it.

Where claims of scientific knowledge provide the basis of significant public policy, demands for what has been called "extended peer review" and "the democratisation of science" become overwhelming.

Science has changed a lot since Einstein's day - and so has society

Extended peer review is an idea that can take many forms.

It may mean the involvement of a wider range of professionals than just scientists.

...

These demands for more openness in science are intensified by the embedding of the internet and Web 2.0 media as central features of many people's social exchanges.

It is no longer tenable to believe that warranted and trusted scientific knowledge can come into existence inside laboratories that are hermetically sealed from such demands.

As time goes on your view that only 'certified scientists' can have anything useful to say is becoming as quaint as newspaper without a website.

[Riverwind]

Assertions of global conspiracy aren't helpful, even if the theory of AGW is completely false.

I suggest you direct such criticisms at the alarmists who insist that climategate is the result of some organized conspiracy by the 'denial industry'.

[myata]

Alas, even with such a fabrication, the round trip would still take about 700 years, as M42 (Orion Nebula) is about 1340 light years away. Even the lay person can spot obvious nonsense, and that includes statistical manipulation of real data and proxies.

Not if you take into account supermuonic space-time hypercompression (which we could discuss at length in our very own super-muonic Web forum).

To M.-H.: general public can discuss the interpretations of science, its implications for the society (as e.g. some still discuss the existence of evolution, while biologists actually observe it in experiments with thousands of generations of insects). It cannot meaningfully contribute to scientific process for the simple reason that it has not learned the language to formulate meaningful phrases, anymore than someone with no knowledge of a foreign language could make meaningful contribution to a discussion in that language.

[Michael Hardner]

I am getting sick of the strawmen that alarmists keep using to dismiss the importance of these emails. The fundamentals of climate science are not overturned by these emails but they do call into question the reliability of the IPCC answers to the key questions like how much warming are we likely to experience over the next 100 years.

The problem that climate science has it the data is extremely poor and subject to the judgment and adjustments by the scientists. We are told that we can trust the collective judgement of the scientific community because they will challenge each other's judgments and ensure the consensus is not biased towards one particular view.

But we know from the emails that key members of the scientific community has systematically attempted to suppress dissenting views and sought to adjust the numbers based solely on what they felt would better support the IPCC political agenda.

To illustrate how key the scientists caught in the emails are one only has to note that they made up 12 of the 26 authors of the latest 'its worse than we thought' fable called the Copenhagen Diagnosis. The scientists are the ones who control what message is being heard by governments and media and everyone should care that they have been exposed as corrupt.

The bottom line is defending the institutions of climate science like the IPCC right now is completely irrational and simply demonstrates that climate alarmism is a religion - not a matter of science.

This is a sobering assessment. Even with my suspicion of experts, and authority, and my own lack of knowledge about the situation, I feel I put too much faith in these scientists. Now, I'd like to know what is really going on: is the system as open as it professes to be or not ?

I concur with the skeptics that this needs a broader inquiry. We rely on academia to provide the core knowledge that we use to inform our decisions. If academia is broken as the rest of society, then we need to ask about that situation first, and immediately.

[Michael Hardner]

I suggest you direct such criticisms at the alarmists who insist that climategate is the result of some organized conspiracy by the 'denial industry'.

Thanks, I'll direct them at both sides. No reason to pick and choose here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not if you take into account supermuonic space-time hypercompression (which we could discuss at length in our very own super-muonic Web forum).

Ironically, you doomed your flawed example fabrication with an immutable fact...."3.7889 times the speed of light".

[Michael Hardner]

Not if you take into account supermuonic space-time hypercompression (which we could discuss at length in our very own super-muonic Web forum).

To M.-H.: general public can discuss the interpretations of science, its implications for the society (as e.g. some still discuss the existence of evolution, while biologists actually observe it in experiments with thousands of generations of insects). It cannot meaningfully contribute to scientific process for the simple reason that it has not learned the language to formulate meaningful phrases, anymore than someone with no knowledge of a foreign language could make meaningful contribution to a discussion in that language.

Myata,

I'm not sure about meaningfully contributing to the process: there are definitely some opportunities for crowdsourcing there.

In any case, it's important that the public understand what is being said, and is bought in to the results. Otherwise, science becomes a religion - whereby the priests tell us what is so, and we simply trust them. It must, rather, be a process. If the skeptics have scientists on their side, then they can step forth and ensure that real debate is happening.

[eyeball]

Because climate scientists know nothing of economics and energy production. Reducing carbon emissions is hugely expensive and will do nothing to alter what may be ahead. Money is better spent elsewhere and the only reason we are even talking of carbon emission reductions is because politically motivated activists see anti-CO2 regulations as a way to impose policies that they like even though these policies will do nothing to address the alledged problem.

Economists know nothing about the environment - its completely outside their scope. Not reducing carbon emissions may ensure that what is coming ahead will be hugely destructive. The reason we are only talking about carbon emission reductions rather than doing anything is because financially motivated activists see CO2 regulations as an imposition of policies that they don't like.

What is the public to do when faced with a government that is paralysed between two intractably entrenched majorities of economists and climatologists who are both preaching doom and destruction?

[Riverwind]

I concur with the skeptics that this needs a broader inquiry. We rely on academia to provide the core knowledge that we use to inform our decisions. If academia is broken as the rest of society, then we need to ask about that situation first, and immediately.

The first step is breaking through the wall of denial among scientists and the MSM that insist that the emails can be ignored because they 'don't prove that climate science is wrong'. Once that wall is broken then we can have a constructive discussion on how to reform the process.

[Riverwind]

What is the public to do when faced with a government that is paralysed between two intractably entrenched majorities of economists and climatologists who are both preaching doom and destruction?

There is no majority of economists preaching doom. In fact, many economic analyses suggest that the cost of mitigation is a lot more expensive than adaption.

[eyeball]

I am getting sick of the strawmen that alarmists keep using to dismiss the importance of these emails. The fundamentals of climate science are not overturned by these emails but they do call into question the reliability of the IPCC answers to the key questions like how much warming are we likely to experience over the next 100 years.

Well, its just a 'good' thing we also have the fact that Arctic ice is melting far faster than previously predicted so yeah the reliability of the IPCC is definitely in question.

The problem that climate science has it the data is extremely poor and subject to the judgment and adjustments by the scientists. We are told that we can trust the collective judgement of the scientific community because they will challenge each other's judgments and ensure the consensus is not biased towards one particular view.

Yes it is clear that the collective judgement of experts, like economists for example cannot and should not be trusted.

But we know from the emails that key members of the scientific community has systematically attempted to suppress dissenting views and sought to adjust the numbers based solely on what they felt would better support the IPCC political agenda.

We need more hackers to penetrate the emails and data-bases of every scientific field to root out what is highly likely a problem that has corrupted the entire scientific community. We've seen this sort of thing before in the field of medicine with regards to tobacco and cancer.

To illustrate how key the scientists caught in the emails are one only has to note that they made up 12 of the 26 authors of the latest 'its worse than we thought' fable called the Copenhagen Diagnosis. The scientists are the ones who control what message is being heard by governments and media and everyone should care that they have been exposed as corrupt.

Fair enough. We should also be just as wary of any science for the exact same reasons.

The bottom line is defending the institutions of climate science like the IPCC right now is completely irrational and simply demonstrates that climate alarmism is a religion - not a matter of science.

It is extremely likely that the very same thing is true in every way shape and form in the Church of Economic Alarmism.

[eyeball]

There is no majority of economists preaching doom. In fact, many economic analyses suggest that the cost of mitigation is a lot more expensive than adaption.

The majority of economists know absolutely nothing about the environment - to these it exist merely as an externality that is so far beyond their scope it might as well be in another dimension.

[myata]

And the problem with climate science is anyone can write anything they want with no consequence as long as it supports the alarmist agenda.

We have already addressed that concern in another thread though, and I'm somewhat surprised you're bringing it back again, unless as a part of never-failing strategy "keep playing the tune no matter anything" in which case please feel free but please don't count on another response.

See, it's simply a matter of statistical probabilities, that of all the thousands of qualified professionals who spent decades of their lives in studies and work in schools around the globe, all of them or great majority of them being wrong, unable to understand the truth, or complicit in a global conspiracy, all that against somebody with unknown qualifications and/or professional record writing something in a general access Web forum because they couldn't be bothered with publishing their findings in the professional forum, or perhaps couldn't get to.

If we admit that possibility, then my muonic wave-riding should also be as good a mean of transportation as a space rocket or even your car (please feel free). We'll have a new age of science where our achievements would be limited only by our imaginations, with only minor occasional upsets in our absolutely exciting lives (like missing muonic wave on the way to that important job interview).

[Riverwind]

Well, its just a 'good' thing we also have the fact that Arctic ice is melting far faster than previously predicted so yeah the reliability of the IPCC is definitely in question.

Ice melts for any number of reasons. The IPCC's claim that we know it is due to CO2 emissions is what is suspect.

Fair enough. We should also be just as wary of any science for the exact same reasons.

Other fields have had to grapple with these kinds of problems. For example, all drug studies need to be reported now. It used to be only the studies with favourable results got published leading to a bias in the literature towards studies that support the usefulness of drugs. We need the same kind of reform to deal with the pro-alarmism in climate science.

[Riverwind]

We have already addressed that concern in another thread though, and I'm somewhat surprised you're bringing it back again

Well since then we have had several thousand emails released that prove that I was right to describe climate scientists as an untrustworthy lot. That fact alone negates all of your points. The only discussion we should be having now is on how to find out how widespread the corruption is and what we can do to reform the processes to prevent such abuses from happening in the future. Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Ice melts for any number of reasons. The IPCC's claim that we know it is due to CO2 emissions is what is suspect.

Other fields have had to grapple with these kinds of problems. For example, all drug studies need to be reported now. It used to be only the studies with favourable results got published leading to a bias in the literature towards studies that support the usefulness of drugs. We need the same kind of reform to deal with the pro-alarmism in climate science.

What about the pro-alarmism in economic science?

[Topaz]

I think its time for Canadians to worry more about Canada than the rest of the world. What can we do here and now to help our citizens? IF the Feds are going to keep stalling than the provinces are going to take on the challenge and I hear Ontario is leading the way. I hope each province will do what it can and show the Tories we aren't with them when it comes to the environment! On the news today, it reported that the US is ahead of Canada, but Ontario is leading North America. So what are provinces doing to help? The Tories first kept saying they were going to have a environment "Made in Canada" now they are saying we want to HARMONIZE with the US! Flip flops, stalling, anything but don't TRY to make things better!

[Riverwind]

What about the pro-alarmism in economic science?

Economics is already freely debated by politicians and the public. e.g. most economists agree the HST is good but that does not stop the public from objecting. The trouble with climate science is people are denigrated for questioning the 'consensus' and it is impossible to have a rational public discussion on the topic.

[wyly]

I think its time for Canadians to worry more about Canada than the rest of the world. What can we do here and now to help our citizens? IF the Feds are going to keep stalling than the provinces are going to take on the challenge and I hear Ontario is leading the way. I hope each province will do what it can and show the Tories we aren't with them when it comes to the environment! On the news today, it reported that the US is ahead of Canada, but Ontario is leading North America. So what are provinces doing to help? The Tories first kept saying they were going to have a environment "Made in Canada" now they are saying we want to HARMONIZE with the US! Flip flops, stalling, anything but don't TRY to make things better!

"HARMONIZE with the US" is conservative party code for do absolutely nothing...US political gridlock assures nothing will happen south of the border for a long time so Canada will do the same under this government...remember we have the PM that claimed Climate Change is a Socialist plot to steal our money, Harper hasn't changed his viewpoint he's only playing games...

[eyeball]

Economics is already freely debated by politicians and the public. e.g. most economists agree the HST is good but that does not stop the public from objecting. The trouble with climate science is people are denigrated for questioning the 'consensus' and it is impossible to have a rational public discussion on the topic.

So if I get called a communist for suggesting we tax the rich its me that's making it impossible to have a rational discussion?

[M.Dancer]

"HARMONIZE with the US" is conservative party code for do absolutely nothing...US political gridlock assures nothing will happen south of the border for a long time so Canada will do the same under this government...remember we have the PM that claimed Climate Change is a Socialist plot to steal our money, Harper hasn't changed his viewpoint he's only playing games...

Given that the US is far ahead of us in environmental legislation and emission controlsm, your post is nonsense.