The illogic of climate hysteria

@ur momisugly Jan P. Perlwitz
If 17 years is the time where you can say that signal can be deduced from the noise then what do you think the warming trend is likely to be in two years? Have you actually thought about the consequences of what you have said?
For 2012 to be warmer than 2010 we will need some seriously powerful el-nino event. So far 2012 looks similar to 2011 which would put it as one of the coolest years in the last decade. Even if 2012 was by some amazing event as warm as 2010 the trend for the last 17 years is unlikely to indicate significant warming. If both 2013 and 2012 were somehow as warm or warmer than 2010 the 15 year trend would still be very very flat. So where does that leave climate sensitivity to CO2?
You should think about what you are saying if you are having an argument.

Greg House says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm
More indication of confusion. I made an observation of the lack of clarity in his writing.

“Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so.”
This sentence doesn’t parse. You can’t have less than no evidence, and the alternate reading that there is “less evidence that it is so” is not a general principle. A lot of people can believe something, and they might even be right. Or a very few people can believe something and that too can be correct.

Smokey says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Greg House says:
“Jim, the primary question is, whether there was a scientific consensus on Jews or killing Jews. Lord Monckton has not provided any evidence yet. You are welcome to help him. Evidence, Jim.”
That is like demanding evidence that the Sun rose in the East this morning. Why bother? So some Holocaust denier can try to dispute it?
===================================================
Smokey, is it possible, that you confused something?
I am not asking for evidences of Holocaust, please, note it. I have asked Lord Monckton and anyone for evidence of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, that according to Lord Monckton resulted in Holocaust.
These are 2 completely different things, Smokey.

Greg House says –
the primary question is, whether there was a scientific consensus on Jews or killing Jews.
Dear Greg:
There are museums that have exhibits dedicated to the propostion you are calling into question.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007062
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/narrative/index.php?content=science
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/index.php?content=nazi_racial_science
The best history of eugenics is by historian Daniel Kevles:
Kevles, D. J. (1995), In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. Revised ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Where do you thing your going to end up following this line of argument you’ve taken up? Kindly take some time to look into this. It is important history and it’s important that you know it.

Greg House. You were right. it was an ad hom and uncalled for. It’s just that I watched as you entered the conversation and immediately tried to redirect the discussion. One might wonder at your motivation for doing that.
Many have come through WUWT and have done exactly what you have done. You have your intellectual arms crossed as Erin Delman does in the photo at the top. It is not helpful or productive.

David Ball says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:13 pm
It’s just that I watched as you entered the conversation and immediately tried to redirect the discussion. One might wonder at your motivation for doing that.
==================================================
Redirect, really? Look, what Lord Monckton wrote in the article above: “Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy.”
I addressed the issue. My main idea was, that telling people they have committed a logical fallacy regarding consensus would not be an efficient argument, my argumentation see above. I do not see any reason to question my motivation.

Greg House = waste of everyones time. I’m out.

Just in case Greg House tries to pull a Jan P. on me and demand references for my statement (at 10:03pm) that the Third Reich’s Final Solution was formed on the scientific consensus of that time, let’s take a trip in the ‘WayBack Machine to 1939, specifically to see some excerpts from a paper read by Felix Tietze, MD, to the Eugenics Society on 17 January and cited in Eugenics Review, Vol XXI, No. 2.
“Another step which to the German legislation seems to be a eugenic measure, which, indeed, is such a one from the standpoint which I explained in the beginning of my paper but would not be considered so in this country [England], was the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour of September I5th, I935, forbidding marriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and citizens of German or related blood and containing the famous regulation that Jews are forbidden to employ in their households female citizens of German or related blood under the age of 45 years. Every German author on eugenics considers this a eugenic law.” My emphasis.
[…]
“After having explained the importance of these three measures – the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Disease, the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German Nation, and the Law for the Promotion of Marriages, to give you an idea of the German conception of racial hygiene and to justify my argument at the beginning of this paper [” Eugenics is an
objective science, i.e. applicable to each group of individuals connected with each other by procreation, without any dependence on race in the anthropological sense of the word to which this group belongs”], I want to quote from an article written by two of the most prominent German eugenists, Alfred Ploetz and Ernst Rüdin, on what seem to them to be some of the eugenic consequences attained in Germany since the Führer took power on January 30th, I933.*
They summarize these as follows:
Education of Germany’s young people.
Repression of the Jewish portion of the population…
* Archiv fur Rassen-und Gesellschafts-Biologie, I938, 82, I85.” Again, my emphasis.
Doc Tietze also scored a body slam: “Before the Third Reich all the experts were agreed about the fact that the experiences of science were still not sufficient to grant such a measure [sterilization of the unfit, marriage laws, etc.]; it was the political issue which made them change their mind.” The scientific consensus in Germany changed overnight with the injection of *politics*. So much for the vaunted high-mindedness, objectivity, and trustworthiness of scientific consensus.
For those interested, the paper (three pages) is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2962393/pdf/eugenrev00236-0025.pdf

Greg House says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm
I am not asking for evidences of Holocaust, please, note it. I have asked Lord Monckton and anyone for evidence of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, that according to Lord Monckton resulted in Holocaust.
It was Hitler’s use of the Eugenics ‘theory’ which resulted in the Holocaust, and as others have pointed out, included those peoples which Hitler also wanted to elimate. The ‘demonising’ of those not considered the ‘pure race’ took on a new twist, by not having to consider them even human as racially inferior, but physically flawed it made them easier to kill (children were indoctrinated into this belief so a whole generation had no concept of seeing them as equals, much as the Spartans with their slave labour force).
Racial purity was the addition/interpretation Hitler put on the eugenics thinking which was not included in the original – or was it?
The eugenics theory from Darwin came from a very clear description and the argument here worth looking at: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
“In Expelled, Ben Stein reads a passage (omitting ellipses) that was also read by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial:
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick, thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.)”
This piece argues that the next sentence is missed out and so claims Darwin wasn’t proposing such for humans:
“But Stein does not quote the very next passage in the Descent of Man which makes clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. Rather, he remarked, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
Two things. First the missing sentence in no way alters Darwin’s preceding points and this sentence was taken on board in the eugenics movement as it developed, hence the forced sterilisation of those considered imperfect specimens; the noble sympathy extended that far but no further. The second is Darwin begins with equating some humans less human than superior whites by calling them savages. It could be said that the ideas of eugenics grew out of the widely held belief of the ‘educated white man’, that those he met in his travels still living in more primitive conditions were racially inferior. Can eugenics as Hitler interpreted it be separated from the idea ‘widely’ held that some races were inferior?
Can’t offhand recall those in England who argued against eugenics being incorporated into society by Acts of Parliament, an indictment on us for allowing their names to disappear from common history of important milestones.., but it was a different story as this spread to America: http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.sfgate.com/
“Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863,
Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people married only other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton’s ideas were imported to the United States just as Gregor Mendel’s principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenics advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.
In a United States demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early 20th century. Elitists, utopians and so-called progressives fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton’s eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: Populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socioeconomic and biological kind — and less or none of everyone else.”
This is the line of thinking which informed Hitler, his scientists trained in America and by support from America in setting up the science in Germany. It was scientific consensus. This was not a few people in isolation from society, it came from a consensus science fully supported by society in America, by its own laws.
“Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes’ words in their own defense.
Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.
Hitler studied American eugenics laws.”
So, I think Monckton correct here.
Something worth bearing in mind though, is that Acts of Parliament are not Laws, they may well be generally called laws and use the term “legal” to describe them, but that does not in and of itself make them lawful. If they are against Common Law they are at the very least unlawful, at the worst, criminal in that they should never have been enacted – certainly passing them off as if laws is fraud (if asked whether a particular legislation is a law, a policeman/woman commit fraud if they say it is). Similarly, and again memory.., but legislation passed by Congress or otherwise brought into effect by imperial edict of the president of the day or ruled by judges, are not ‘lawful’ if against the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which is not a government giving rights to subject citizens, but clarification of natural rights, Common Law. We really need to understand the differences, the confusion between the two is what is exploited by those intent on making it appear their unlawful acts are legitimate. The eugenic laws passed in America were not lawful, but they were passed because of the held science consensus of the time. Just as all the carbon restrictions are passed now, because of science consensus.
However, Greg, I do agree with you that Monckton’s style makes it appear that he agrees with consensus, and though he said not his view to something you questioned earlier, he has made it clear in other posts, to me, that he agrees with science consensus about carbon dioxide warming, the Greenhouse Effect, and brooks no argument about it.