Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

“A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
That one sentence describes every major player on the alarmist side.
Is there even one supporting hypothesis of the warmist agenda which hasn’t been shown to be incorrect and more often than not, derived through corrupt practice?

Physicians might be interested in the predicted high mortality rate as a consequence of global warming. Think of the malaria mosquito allegedly migrating north etc.
It seems the IPCC and associated governments will now emphasize the prophesized terrible consequences of global warming. As former UN climate chief (what is that) Yvo de Boer put it, based on the ‘leaked’ 5th Assessment Report (AR5): it “will scare the wits out of everyone”.
Risk = Probability x Consequence
In the anticipated AR5 the probability of (runaway/unprecedented/etc) global warming is being scaled down while the consequences are simultaneously being blown up. Giving politicians a fine excuse to state that “considering the potentially disastrous consequences we can’t afford the risk not to act” and such.
In this story the amount of warming c.q. climate sensitivity will not much interest politicians, unless it becomes obvious that it will remain below their self-defined danger threshold of 2 C. The water cycle will probably take care of this, as it always appears to have reliably done.

It’s not surprising physicians are more rigorous in their science than the junk peddled by “climate scientists”, as their judgment directly affects patient outcomes, eg. life and death. Also, they have been very badly burned pretty in the past by powerful self interest from within their profession. I’m thinking of surgeons’ long/fierce resistance to accepting peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria (H. pylori) and are best treated with cheap antibiotics rather than expensive surgery.

@richard D –
Let’s also not forget the Duke University cancer cure scam two years ago – that had to have been a wake-up call for physicians. Like you say, people die quickly if doctors get it wrong, but the deaths from global warming alarmist policies can take years to become evident.

This is an extremely important article. It is running in some major news papers and may be picked up by more. Basically we are seeing that there are ‘behind the curtain’ discussions among the directors and editors of some prestigious scientific organization as they realize that climate science has been dominated by extraordinarily poor science. Not to say a political agenda designed to siphon money out of gullible politicians that are offered the opportunity to tax without limit. And that it would be best to remove oneself from the ridicule sure to come as study after study, often undertaken by intrigued specialists whose interest was sparked by outrageous predictions, fail to confirm data, much less the hypothesis.

Another article from the same issue:
From the President: Dialectic of Deceit
Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D.

I received a packet in the mail from one of the big insurers, asking that I consider joining their network. To amuse myself I opened it and read. Attached was a 15-page contract, prefaced by the usual vague assumptions about the insurer and the manner in which it would tell the doctor what to do. The rest, paragraph after paragraph, began with the words, “Doctor shall submit….”
Doctor shall submit. Over and over. The language was so—hypnotic in its repetition and cadence. Doctor shall submit. Like a chant, or a hymn. Doctor shall submit. I thought to myself as I tossed it in the trash, “I will not submit.”
Little Subtle Lies
I have been thinking lately about the jargon surrounding the medical field and how the subtle naming of things ensnares the physician into bondage to insurance companies, the government, and pharmaceutical companies, impelling him to act on the demands of everyone except himself and the patient. This contrived and manipulative style reflects the retreat of rights and autonomy.

THIS journal is going to go on my reading list! Refreshing!

“The time has come for us to see. What we are now asked to worship, what had once been dressed as God or king, is the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent. This is the new ideal, the goal to aim at, the purpose to live for, and all men are to be rewarded according to how close they approach it.” – Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, 1957)
“It is very often by Princes rather than by their own merits that men are brought to the greatness that they desire.” – Giorgio Vasari (Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 1568)

Old global warming arguments never die. They just smell that way.
The article is like a breath of fresh air.

Anyone here understand the word “irony”? The science has been co-opted by both sides of the argument. Of course, when the message chimes with what we want to hear, it makes a louder, more mellifluous sound.

As always, Prof. Lindzen is honest & to the point! Perhaps the medical community is a bit nervous, as they have hitched their wagon to CAGW rather tightly & may be starting to reconsider that. In my field (public health), it is de rigueur to hew to the party line, i.e. more warming equals malaria in Wisconsin eventually etc. I’m surrounded by it and have to keep my yap shut.
I highly recommend everyone to watch Prof. Lindzen’s colloquium speech to the assembled scientists of Fermi National Laboratory in 2010, titled “The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming.” He really goes after the “new religion” aspects of CAGW, much to the dismay and disapproval of the assembled physicists. Since FNAL is DOE, that was to be expected. It was a great show, I was glad I attended! If the link doesn’t work, it means FNAL is having a technical issue, that happens in these sequester shortages.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm

Anthony,
You write: “In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate “debate,” however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.”
Point taken. However, I think you mean “real science,” not “normal science,” which has an entirely different meaning per Thomas Kuhn (1962). The behavior of the alarmists is entirely in keeping with Kuhn’s “Normal Science,” (capital N, capital S), i.e. the defense of the paradigm even to an irrational degree and irrespective of contrary facts.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

That is very nicely put, clear and succinct, as is everything Richard Lindzen is quoted as saying. Excellent.
“Science” as a concept has never been scraping the bottom of the barrel as long as it has been recently. It is a consequence of zero self-discipline, with no consequences to those high-profile crazies that have hijacked it at every step. And they have far surpassed all the previous historical examples of un-scientific carelessness.

Richard
Thank you for your measured and considered comment. It is no more than I had expected, especially from you. Have you actually read the paper? It is here http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf
It is written in the usual style of the (now) “realists” – AGW is a religion, it is comparable with lysenkoism (are governments putting you and your skeptical mates like Lindzen and Spencer in prison to rot away and die long and painful deaths? Of course they aren’t because the comparison is unsustainable). Why didn’t the beloved George W Bush (2001-2009) end the global warming conspiracy? He didn’t because there isn’t one. Climategate as pathology – that one is dead.
The fact that it is in such a low impact journal, one with a very poor reputation says so much. The fact that it plays the same Tony’s tricks to hide the incline by having two squiggly graphs and asking the reading to spot the eight differences (clue, there is an elephant in one of the graphs) and another of using daily variation to mislead the reader into not noticing the year on year increase is typical “fake realist” fare. And you have the shallowness to call my comment bollocks when you know that both sides of the argument, for and against, use the science to their own ends.
I have no more to add. Good afternoon
Margaret

Re: NikFromNYC
“The time has come for us to see. What we are now asked to worship, what had once been dressed as God or king, is the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent. (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged. 1957)
From: Dialectic of Deceit: —–
“We are called “providers” instead of doctors. This single, seemingly non-threatening word instantly erases our years of top grade scores, entry exams, expensive and intensive education, highly competitive testing, and unbelievable residency hours—and lumps us in with the physician assistant or nurse practitioner who completes a part-time two-year course.
“… We must learn to identify deceptive and manipulative language, and avoid falling into arguments or discussions founded on terms designed to mislead. To allow manipulative language to remain unchallenged is to engage in a dialectic of deceit, a debate in which logic is useless and the truth can never be revealed. Adopting the language of our opponents automatically concedes the fight. Are you a “provider” or a doctor? … ”
“…. I don’t submit a claim. I send a bill. ….
“…. Submitting a claim is the same as submitting your training, your experience, your very profession, to the whims of the lowest insurance clerk. I can tell you that this doctor, that this organization, will never submit.” [end] ( – Dialectic of Deceit, Fall 2013)
-Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D., Marble Falls, TX, serves as president of AAPS.
Friends, seldom do I stumble upon such a magnificent essay for the ages. 2 pages, 4 columns, 1430 words. It is worth you time to read every golden word. And reread. Savor it.

Game over when Dick Lindzen goes JPANDS. That is not a mark of distinction.
(Lindzen’s CV. Compared with his intellect, you have zero distinction. Comparing yourself to a rabbit. Supremely pathetic. ~mod)

Londo says: August 29, 2013 at 11:55
All credit to Eisenhower but another (half) American put it well a few years earlier.
“But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties…”

Rabbett, how about when you do the dirty deeds of William Connolley on Wikipedia? Talking about the gutter…

Vincent Nunes says: @ August 29, 2013 at 11:22 am
“Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.”
Oh no – does that mean that we all have to bear witness to Michael Mann in a sandwich board and not much else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It could be worse it could be Al Gore!
Now what I want to know is when we will get ALL that money back. Just think we could pay off ALL the national debts!

Margaret Hardman 12:45 pm, reply to richard.
AGW is a religion, it is comparable with lysenkoism (are governments putting you and your skeptical mates like Lindzen and Spencer in prison to rot away and die long and painful deaths?
It has been proposed by some.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

Another rational, spot-on and exposing contribution from Lindzen. For that, he will no doubt be further demonised by the CO²-centric, ’97% consensus’ expert, fund leeching, grant driven, gravy-train, corrupt AGW science cult.
Lindzen all over the hoax: “For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/bureaucratic-dioxide/

Margaret Hardman says: @ August 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm
…..Why didn’t the beloved George W Bush (2001-2009) end the global warming conspiracy? He didn’t because there isn’t one. Climategate as pathology – that one is dead…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And why would you think there is any real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? That is a fairy tale for the brain dead masses, and even they are waking up to that fact. Politicians are bought and paid for by the elite. Top senate Democrat Dick Durbin even blurted it out on radio.

…Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.
The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials….
http://www.salon.com/2009/04/30/ownership/

Elaine Dewar [Cloak of Green}

Strong blurted out that he’d almost been shut out of the Earth Summit by people at the State Department. They had been overruled by the White House because George Bush knew him. He said that he’d donated some $100,000 to the Democrats and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988. (The Republicans didn’t confirm.)
I had been absolutely astonished. I mean yes, he had done a great deal of business in the U.S., but how could he have managed such contributions?
Well, he’d had a green card. The governor of Colorado had suggested it to him. A lawyer in Denver had told him how.
But why? I’d asked.
“Because I wanted influence in the United States.”
So Strong gave political contributions (of dubious legality) to both parties; George Bush, now a friend, intervened to help him stay in charge of the Rio conference; he was thereby enabled to set a deep green agenda there; and Bush took a political hit in an election year. An instructive tale — if it is not part of Strong’s mythmaking….

Or from the more liberal Mother Jones:

…ADM’s bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole….
Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”
It might seem odd that a man with personal assets well into nine figures would be so quick to hoist the red flag of socialism over the American heartland. But Andreas is essentially right. Agriculture is the last industry where the U.S. government so routinely sets prices and determines production levels, a complex arena in which doing business often has more to do with influencing legislation than with responding to supply and demand. Prospering in this environment is ADM’s forte.

Or WIKI

In 1970, Dwayne Andreas became the chief executive officer of ADM, and is credited with transforming the firm into an industrial powerhouse. Andreas remained CEO until 1997 before his nephew G. Allen Andreas was named to this position.[8] He was one of the most prominent political campaign donors in the United States,[9] having contributed millions of dollars to Democratic and Republican candidates alike….

[ADM is Archer-Daniels-Midland, a ag-chemical-processing giant, right? Mod]

Lindzen mentions eugenics, and it is important to note that eugenics was part of a larger movement called Social Darwinism, which had many variations but essentially advocated forcing ‘natural law’ onto human societies. Of course, what ‘natural law’ is, can be ambiguous, often politically convenient, and also often becomes co-opted for political reasons to justify e.g. wars, racism, and forced sterilisation. One of its common assumptions was that what occurred naturally was ‘good’ and right, and most of what occurred in society that was ‘bad’ could therefore be blamed on humans and human societies.
But it is a undeniable fact that not all that occurs ‘naturally’, or in nature, is good for humans: e.g. radioactivity (e.g. people used to wear ‘naturally glowing’ blue thorium around their neck, until they found out it killed them), lightning, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, volcanos, allergic reactions, poisonous and addictive plants and vegetables, most but not all genetic mutations, cosmic rays, viruses, spontaneous cancerous cells etc etc.
But the important thing is this, just because something occurs in nature, doesn’t mean humans should follow it, or that it is ‘good’ for humans in any case (see examples above). What ‘is’, is not necessarily what ‘ought’ to be, for humans of otherwise. We take, share and use those things in, and from, nature that are good for us, and we reject those that are not, taking into account the available science and our socio-economic values. Getting this balance right is an issue that faces every generation. It is something that we have been doing for thousands of years.
It often seems that climate alarmism is in danger of assuming one of the major mistakes that social darwinists also made, that is, it tends to see nature and what occurs naturally as essentially good and stable, and therefore things that occur in nature that is unstable and ‘bad’ for humans (e.g. hurricanes, floods etc), can therefore be blamed on humans. It also sees nature as being essentially stable and unchanging, whereas nature always changes. It also seems to sometimes advocate forcing ‘natural law’ onto human societies, the same sort of way social darwinists did; that is, ‘natural law’ that is defined politically, not in nature as it is-an example being forcing an unchanging climate onto human societies, rather than seeing nature and climate as in a constant state of change. (Interestingly, this is also what anti-evolutionists tend to do, they regard species as constant and unchanging and in ‘balance’ with each other and nature, whereas species are always changing (albeit often very slowly in terms of human time frames) and in constant competition).

The link to the Sacramento Bee site is wonked out.

Which do you prefer when revealing a scientific truth – reasoned logic and objectivity or blind allegiance to invalid modeling, compromising gray literature, identify theft, and e-mails “taken out of context?” Of course, you could (as some have done) employ fallacious reasoning via argumentum ad hominem instead of addressing certain points (e.g., behold, the religion of warming), but where’s the challenge in that?
The promulgation of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is similar to a religion because its followers (a/k/a warmists) believe in or partake of the following:
(1) Revelation – warmists know the peer-reviewed papers of “deniers” is anything but sound let alone objective. This knowledge is revealed by summarily dismissing denier criticism of any and all warmist papers, provided the appropriate web sites (the Cannon of the Cause) are quoted as supportive scripture. While the denier messaging may be well-managed and include some… impact on public opinion, neither are good enough for the cleverness of warmist speculations on wide-ranging aerosol variables in climate models or deep ocean heat transfers.
(2) Reminiscence – warmists often gather in communal settings entitled “climate conferences” to listen to each other speak the truth about CAGW, as represented by a “consensus.” While these may be compared to locust swarms due to the ridiculous number of attendees, the conferences are a perfect setting to reminisce about their cleverness at having revealed the “truth” or the… Cause, while deniers remain ignorant. This sharing allows warmists to integrate their shared thoughts into daily thinking and, ultimately, the public lexicon.
(3) Ritual – warmists use constant repetition of self-labeled truths (e.g., 97% of scientists agree that climate change is… man-made and dangerous, the Earth has a fever, and temperature lags CO2) and common terms (e.g. denier) to reinforce their revelations. The repetitive use of these truths and terms lends comfort to warmists through their ritualistic use. Similar and consistent approaches are taken against those who disagree with the warmists (a/k/a skeptics) in a thoughtful and considerate manner, ensuring that the denier’s points are not addressed but their character is questioned openly – and repeatedly.
(4) Reverence – warmists give great weight to “enlightened” and “embattled” scholars (e.g., Gore, Hansen, and Mann) as verification that the Cause is not only valid but “just” (morally anyway vis-à-vis Gleick). How could someone like Dr. Michael E. Mann be… wrong?
(5) Restrictions – warmists place opposition to the consensus alongside other conspiracy theories. Accepting deniers as conspiracy theorists is a gateway through which warmists must pass to be accepted by other followers. If a person cannot or will not pass, then they are likely a denier or shill for the same – ignorant of the consensus and Cause.
(6) Repentance – warmists who have passed through the gateway but falter in the “faith” (a/k/a luke-warmers) must be shown the error of their ways or thoughts. If they repent of their misdeeds, then they are permitted to return to the warmist fold but under a renewed watch for repeat lapses (e.g., wherefore art thou, Lovelock?)
(7) Reliance – warmists are optimistic and rely on the belief that once the public (especially in carbon excessive nations) fully accepts the consensus, then hope for a greener and sustainable humanity is possible (the planet might even heal). However, things may (some warmists would argue – must) get worse before they get better (e.g., submerged coastlines, vanquished polar ice, and angrier people).
(8) Resurrection – warmists assert that full acceptance of the consensus will reawaken humanity from its slumber of ignorance and yet again attain its magnificence but as a kinder, gentler, and more globally-conscious and focused species, willing to share its wealth equitably.
(9) Rebellion – warmists are in opposition to objectivity (a necessity of the scientific method) because it is the denier that perpetrates the “crime.” Naturally, this requires a high level of devotion and dedication to the Cause or “rebellion” because of the possible consequences… if caught (e.g., 10:10 the Eco-terrorists, Gleick the Liar, and Mann the Climate Warrior).
(10) Removal – warmists who now understand they have been deceived by the consensus must be removed and disassociated with the Cause (Curry). The best vehicle for accomplishing this removal is to claim the violator was a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along – meant to split the unity of the consensus.
(11) Relevance – warmist thoughts and actions are critical to the times in which they live – extreme weather is climate… now. With the presumption that carbon excesses are tantamount to environmental injustice, a global immorality exists within Western culture that only the Cause via the consensus can reverse – thank goodness for the UN IPCC; let’s award them a Nobel Peace Prize.
(12) Relationships – warmists share: knowledge via a multiple of web sites (e.g., SkS, Real Climate, and even *gasp* HotWhopper – big wave to Sou), subjective articles, false papers, bloated conferences, etc.), which create social and emotional relations that only strengthen the consensus to the Cause
(13) Reality – warmists promote the Cause as its own “reality” not by evidentiary examination via the scientific method but by the collective will of the consensus – 97% cannot be wrong because… even dictatorships achieve such numbers – whatever. The reality is the inertia that IS the collective will of the individual warmist, and surely, this many people cannot be wrong. “We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves,” – George Orwell.
(14) Righteousness – warmist leaders have established rules (e.g., communicating the evils of CAGW by all possible vehicles and paying lip service to the scientific method as a matter of necessity) by which those within the consensus must operate. Adherence to these rules is required and assists the leaders by ensuring that the consensus is aligned to their wills (schisms are not tolerated, Lewis – ever).
(15) Retribution – Prior to repentance, a former denier or luke-warmer must understand that there are consequences for not following the rules. These consequences include a diminishing of the former denier’s words, close association to a leader to learn more of the truth (or be watched more closely), and use as a public image of the Cause (Muller).
I believe that an adherence to the scientific method, with a healthy dose of Occam’s Razor thrown in, is a better approach with sounder results to reviewing the global surface mean temperature anomaly rather than a religious-like movement and its multiple and complex (sometimes conflicting) components. In this case, the path to the truth is as important as the truth itself.
Please note that this comment has been adapted from an online diary entry I posted in 2007, regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement. Lindzen is spot on to label the Cause as a religion.

[ADM is Archer-Daniels-Midland, a ag-chemical-processing giant, right? Mod]
Correct. Sorry I meant to indicate that in the first use of the initials.

“Hoya Skeptic says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Anthony,
You write: “In normal science, . . . ”
This seems to be a statement in a press release that quotes or closely follows the words of Richard Lindzen. I don’t see an attribution to the actual press writer but will go out on a limb here and say I doubt the person is named “Anthony.”

“What Eisenhower did not warn against was that public policy might become the captive of a self-declared scientific-technological elite, one which is driven by its preferred policies first and last, and which is shameless in presenting its “science” to support them, even when it doesn’t deserve the name.”
I guess the 97% consensus paper by SkS et al make that point abundantly clear.

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph. D. said {in jpands},
Global warming differs from the preceding two [Lysenkoism & eugenics] affairs: Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.

– – – – – – – –
Lindzen’s observation above in bold prompts me to address more fundamental aspects of Man’s nature quo Man than the need to seek meaning in one’s existence. More fundamental concepts which the search for a life defining meaning depend on are: the objective criteria for understanding the physically existent capacity to know ; and the methods appropriate for correctly using it.
If a person has not worked out in their own minds independently and in a reasonably complete way those kinds of concepts from a real set of observations of physical nature, then one needs to accept what someone else claims to have done to understand a meaning of ones life. That borrowing would be a second hand basis for determining your life’s meaning.
I think the wide acceptance of the religion of Global Warming stems from a profound lack of elemental education of youth by both parents and the members of immediate families. Lack of elemental education on the concepts I described above. Global Warming adherents have simply borrowed a prepackaged and one size fits all meaning of life largely because they lack the elemental education to derive individually and reasonably their own understanding of the meaning of their unique life.
John

Bruce Cobb says: @ August 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Poor Margaret. The CAGW religion seems to have rotted her brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More likely her purse or her ‘Cause’ is threatened.

(Snip. This moderator, at least, is getting weary of your non-stop ad hominems targeting Prof. Richard Lindzen. If you have the need to constantly single out and disparage a well respected scientist, do it on your own blog where both your regular readers will see it. ~mod.)

You’ll have to ask Lindzen what his motivation is. I can’t pretend to speak for him. There are many possibilities but I am not going to speculate. Others on this thread pretend they can talk for me, however. All I can say about Lindzen’s paper is that it was a rehash of so many over-familiar and unreferenced statements in one place. It’s like he decided to make a collection of anti-AGW cliches in one handy place.
Margaret

Correction: Kepler came up with his three laws *as a result* of his desire to make his astrology more accurate, not in order to do so.