![Spin[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/spin1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” E.R. Beadle.
In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton, graduate of Harvard Medical School and author of State of fear, said,
I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We are in virtual reality primarily as Public Relations (PR) and its methods are applied to every aspect of our lives. The term “spin doctors” is more appropriate because it is what they are really doing. A spin doctor is defined as: “a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party.” It doesn’t say truthful interpretation. There are lies of commission and omission and this definition bypasses the category of omission. It’s reasonable to argue that if you deliberately commit a sin of omission it encompasses both. A ”favorable interpretation” means there is deliberate premeditated deception. The person knows the truth, but selects information to create a false interpretation.
Despite all the discussion and reports about weather and climate the public are unaware of even the most fundamental facts. Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.
Few people exemplify or describe the modern PR views better (worse?) than Jim Hoggan, President of a large Canadian PR company, Hoggan and Associates, in the Vancouver Sun December 30, 2005.
Want good coverage? Tell a good story. When your business is under siege, you can’t hope to control the situation without first controlling the story. The most effective form of communication is a compelling narrative that ties your interest to those of your audience. This is particularly critical when you’re caught in the spotlight; it doesn’t matter if you have the facts on your side if your detractors are framing the story. So, don’t just react. Take some time now to define your company story. Then you’ll be ready to build a response into that narrative should something go wrong.
Environment and climate suffer more from spinning than most areas and Hoggan, as Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and owner of a large PR company, has a long connection with both. He is the proud founder and supporter of the web site DeSmogBlog as he explains in his book about the climate cover-up. The objective was to denigrate people by creating “favorable interpretations” to the following questions. “Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?” This wasn’t about answering the questions skeptics were asking about the science. Richard Littlemore, Hoggan’s co-author and senior writer for DeSmogBlog, revealed what was going on in a December 2007 email to Michael Mann.
Hi Michael [Mann],
I’m a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (sic) (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger’s intervention in Science. (Emphasis added)
The hypocrisy is profound because nobody ever questioned Al Gore’s qualifications or financial, career or political rewards. No promoters of global warming, such as Bill McKibben, Ross Gelbspan, Seth Borenstein, Andrew Revkin or most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are challenged. Borenstein exposed his bias in a leaked CRU email from July 23, 2009 to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang. He wrote, “Kevin (Trenberth), Gavin (Schmidt), Mike (Mann), It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Watchya think?” A journalist talking to scientists is legitimate, but like the leaked emails, tone and subjectivity are telling. “Again” means there was previous communication. At least Revkin left the New York Times apparently because of such exposure.
The problem began the moment environmentalism and climate were exploited for political agendas and people asked questions. If you can’t answer the questions you either admit that or initiate personal attacks. Spin-doctors use two basic types.
• The individual is named and a slur applied. These are usually false or at best taken out of context. This includes guilt by association and taking payment from an agency or belonging to a group the slanderer considers inappropriate. It is an ad hominem.
• Individuals are marginalized by putting them in a group with a term created that marginalizes by implying they are at best outside any norm. For example, despite obvious limitations of data availability anyone who asks about President Obama’s biography is called a “Birther”. Anyone who is troubled by incomplete, unclear, or illogical explanations for events is called a “Conspiracy theorist”. There is no word or phrase for falsifying information about a group. A collective ad hominem is a contradiction. Guilt by association has some application, but a term like “Birther” has a different function. It is a collective designed to discredit anyone assigned. There can be no general name because the objective is to identify the group with a specific issue. This is necessary as part of the goal of marginalizing or isolating.
Early indicators of the politicizing of climate included the claim of a consensus. The word applies in politics not science Calling people who questioned the science “skeptics” was greater evidence. “Skeptic” is negative for the public and defined as “A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.” Most think it is the definition for a cynic, “A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.” The problem is most people don’t know that scientists must be skeptics.
The epithet “global warming skeptic” was applied to me years ago and was used in questions from the media. When I explained I accepted global warming the media was surprised. They didn’t understand when I explained my skepticism was about the cause – the claim it was due to human CO2. Some labeled me a contrarian, but it wasn’t effective because few know what it means.
When the basic assumption of the IPCC hypothesis that increased CO2 causes increased temperature stopped occurring after 1998, the attackers changed the subject and the pejorative. They raised the smearing level because they were losing the battle for the public mind. Now it became climate change and questioners deniers with the deliberate association with “holocaust deniers”.
Ironically, like all so-labeled, I am anything but a denier. My 40-year career involved teaching people how much climate changes naturally over time. The IPCC were deliberately constrained by their terms of reference to human causes and don’t consider natural changes. Rather they provide a “favorable interpretation” for their political objective to blame human CO2. It’s an interpretation a required spin to counter what Huxley called ugly facts.
Every time a problem appeared public relations people appeared and strategized a defense, usually to divert from the problem. When the emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) a public relations person was engaged. After the November 2009 leak the University of East Anglia hired Neil Wallis of Outside Organization to handle the fall out. University spokesperson Trevor Davies said it was a “reputation management” problem, which he said they don’t handle well. Apparently they didn’t consider telling the truth. The leaked emails triggered a shock wave that required a top political spin-doctor. Wallis, a former editor at the News of The World, was later arrested in connection with the phone hacking scandals that led to the resignation of London Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, as well as Andy Coulson, Prime Minister Cameron’s press secretary.
Michael Mann’s 2004 email to CRU Director Phil Jones was evidence of the PR battle. Confronted by challenging questions they apparently developed a defensive mentality.
“I’ve personally stopped responding to these, they’re going to get a few of these op-ed pieces out here and there, but the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about. By the way, Gavin did come up w/ the name!”
The “site” is the web site Realclimate, named by Gavin (Schmidt). But science doesn’t need PR, so why do climate scientists use it? The apparent answer is they are not telling the truth and worse, know it.
I opened with a quote from Michael Crichton so it is fitting to end with his closing remarks.
Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.
The problem and challenge is the population generally divides into 80 percent who struggle with science and 20 percent who are comfortable. I taught a science credit for arts students for 25 years so know the challenges. This makes resolving Crichton’s challenge of “distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”, even more difficult. It is almost impossible when professional spin-doctors are deliberately diverting, misleading and creating confusion.
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” – Thomas H. Huxley
“A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree” – Dr. Leonard George.
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” –Thomas Jefferson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bob Mac Innes says:
November 7, 2013 at 4:24 am
“I would suggest publishing their IP addresses which I theorize would often trace back to an organization called OFA.”
Stupid idea. We all know already the Obama administration plays these games. Their own Cass Sunstein has told us so.
DirkH says: @ur momisugly November 7, 2013 at 3:43 am
…Later, Russia and China opened up to capitalism – and they found that the self-dismantling of the “West” fit into their local strategies very well – maybe the KGB even had a hand in enacting the rollout of the strategy in the West in the first place; after all, all the small communist parties in the West and some social democrats were controlled by the Comintern / the KGB…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For what it is worth The Wall Street Journal had a small buried article in the spring of 1994 (April?)
That stated the KGB not only funded but actually ran the activist groups here in the USA. I did not clip it because I figured it would become front page news more fool me.
I have searched for that darn article for years and have never found it again.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Well said. These quotes are so applicable to all aspects of our current political media-driven world:
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” – Thomas H. Huxley
“A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree” – Dr. Leonard George.
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” –Thomas Jefferson
rogerknights says:
November 7, 2013 at 4:10 am
…. Monckton Rebuttal to Skeptic magazine article:
http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/moncktonskepticreplylong.pdf
…..Members of the Japanese Academy of Sciences have described the true-believers’ position as being no better than a belief in astrology; the Russian Academy under Dr. Illarionov…rejected the alarmist position as politically motivated; the former director of the Dutch Meteorological Institute… the Royal Society, having relieved itself of the Marxist president under which its original and embarrassingly absurd statement on “global warming” had been published, has rewritten it from top to bottom to take out nearly all of the extremist nonsense to which the Professor appears uncritically to subscribe…. a Norwegian expert group…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seems like the backpedaling has started. Soon to become a stampede I hope. :>) No doubt do in large part to people like Anthony, Jo Nova Dr. Ball and all the rest. Thanks
BTW, Great article Dr Ball.
Lets not forget the rest of the JUNK SCIENCE being spread across the globe in support of smoking bans!
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
Stick around, “Dumb”, and you might actually learn something. If your apparent attachment to your CAGW Belief system will allow you to, that is. Mumbling about the Permian, PETM, and “ice ball earth” won’t cut it, though.
Nice quote:
I try not to insult or denigrate believers, because I know that they’ve likely been the victims of this sort of disinformation. Usually when discussing climate stuff I go with an educational theme. The idea is to point out things they didn’t know, or didn’t think about, that essentially dismantle their belief system. The “no warming for 17 years” thing is very effective for this, since it’s so easy to prove, then move on to the fact that hurricanes, tornadoes, and extreme weather events have not, in fact, increased, even though we’ve been repeatedly told that they are/will/should.
In the other direction, however, I find myself only subject to ridiculous insults. I’m an idiot, a denier, know nothing about science, the people I quote aren’t really climate scientists, etc. Heck, it’s the game plan Suzuki was going with when he humiliated himself on Australian TV. Dr Ball’s essay easily explains this.
I’m searching for an effective, quick summary of the theory and science that I can send people to. Although there is a wealth of knowledge and references at WUWT, there’s still no clean, simple summary that would start a believer on the path to knowledge.
Look this is a field where you have people claiming they have “reputable”
‘ ‘ s c i e n c e ‘ ‘
revealing to the world someone figured out using a computer model that can’t forecast jack s**t,
that immersing a warm rock, into a frigid, fluid, gas bath,
and spinning it a thousand miles an hour at the bottom of it,
warms it.
—–
This is a field where about 14 or 15 employees of, basically, several national weather services, generated a scam using computer modeling and some other non sciences, like ice and wood bores – the reasons they’re both about as reliable as watching birds crap are almost endless for those – they are, in fact, pseudoscience, themselves –
these people were, and are, using government paid press, to simply broadcast u t t e r fabrications, so business associates can nudge markets.
A frigid fluid gas bath had a warm rock dropped into it, and the rock GOT WARMER?
Say WHAT?
This is a field that goes further.
These are men who not only claim immersing the warm rock into the frigid fluid bath heated it,
they are further trying to tell you to teach your children that adding a one percent shot of phase change refrigerant,
that’s water,
doesn’t create a refrigeration cycle.
These men are telling your children, the refrigerant is a heater.
And that there’s a giant infrared light on in that refrigerant
and that it’s controlling the temperature of the planet.
And, that the phase change refrigerant, water – it evaporates, that’s a phase change, and then as it rises per classical mechanics, pressure differential creates a second phase change, so this is a
pressure differential driven,
phase change refrigerant,
having collected heat in evaporation,
risen dumping energy upward toward space and the upper atmosphere –
it becomes ice. The contraction re-adjusts the gravity/mass ratio it falls.
It evaporates, it rises again. This goes on 24/7/365, mostly in a line following the sun.
Government employees are telling you to your face that this is not refrigeration,
that this is a heater.
That refrigerating this frigid, fluid, nitrogen/oxygen gas bath, we’re breathing,
makes it hotter even more than the previous “heating” of the warm rock when it became immersed in the
again,
frigid fluid gas bath.
—–
It’s simple political crime period, and always was.
Al Gore was left some Occidental Oil stocks by Daddy Senator Gore who was an Oilman.
But little Al Jr didn’t get real oil stocks from daddy, he got ALTERNATIVE ENERGY stocks,
and when Al Jr lost the election he needed a come back tour to gin up cash and stay relevant with the hippie chicks.
He seized on Jim Hansen and Phil Jones and Tom Wigley and Mike Mann’s CO2 scam about the “magical asploding tropopause” and in putting the spotlight on it,
started swooping up the college girls and cash showing polar bear pictures and making people go ooooh, and aaaah…!
When he saw his energy market manipulation was putting lots of ooh and aah into his alternative energy/oil company stocks (Occidental Oils a huge oil company but because almost half it’s investments are in Alternative Energy they don’t show up much in the news; however they are or were until recently, the #2 oil company supplying the state of California)
When he saw his energy market manipulation working out so well,
he just doubled down, and dared anyone to prosecute any of his friends as they sought to
go ahead
and install his policies in spite of the election.
His environmental oil and alternative energy markets related ones at least,
out of terror
for our lives
if we didn’t do what he said do.
And he told his followers that it was for real and they had a moral obligation to even break the law, drag down the system by sheer inertia and disobedience, because “this time it’s too dangerous to rely on these old [duly constituted governmental checks and balances, and law enforcement] systems, they’re what got us into this.”
And so he had his liberal followers simply break the law en masse so he could manipulate energy markets, you name it – with impunity.
Teaching your children
to punish you for not making him president
that a frigid fluid bath with a phase change refrigeration system
will warm something you immerse in it.
To make your children obey regulations saying they’re guilty of climate sins.
That’s called evil as a snake and that’s what Al Gore and these grant whores are doing.
That’s all they’re doing, there never was any science, in ANY of this, it was a second energy markets scam, built on an obscure, but profitable, gas energy statistics in climate projections, scam.
It was about 15 guys, and they ginned up papers with dozens upon DOZENS of students to make it look like “jillions of scientists” were doing some kind of ground breaking research,
and discovering that when you drop things into refrigerated fluid baths, they actually get hot.
So you all had better be really afraid because it’s all different now. The rules of physics have changed and it’s too big for you to check my work.
No, no it’s not too big, I can check it just by describing what these hickbillies claim to me and it’s bald faced lying from word one.
The atmosphere is a thermally connected cold mass, physically pulled into contact with a warmer mass, in this case by gravity, and that heat can only leak off one way,
when you immerse the warm rock, and spin it a thousand miles an hour in the frigid, fluid,
phase change refrigerated,
gas bath.
That’s simply all there ever is or was to it and anybody whose got their explanation of the magically backerdistical flow had better have some heat engines patented and working on that principle,
because the entire world is still awaiting the first example of immersion of a warm object into a frigid fluid bath,
creating a thermometer rise.
A very thoughtful and beautifully written piece.
While the dubious quality of scientific education may be a factor in the equation, we cannot assume that scientifically literate people are immune to this kind of scam. I have brought up this topic more than once to several of my colleagues in a university chemistry department, whom I respect for their intelligence and knowledge in their own areas of expertise. Most are not aware that there is no solid scientific evidence whatsoever for dangerous man-made global warming; they take it all at face value. (One of them even used the d-word in a discussion, at which I really was taken aback.)
Another colleague who has a very pretty collection of ivy-league degrees and works in a high research-related position at an American pharmaceutical company, and who in his own scientific work takes a very thorough and rigorous approach, once brought up the rejection of global warming to illustrate to me how far the right-wingers in his country had departed from reality. Obviously, he considered global warming a simple, self-evident example of scientific truth. He was a bit confused when I called him on it and asked whether he had spent any time looking into the evidence, which he admitted he had not done.
If intelligent, well-educated people, whose job it is to create new and to question existing knowledge, are this easily taken in, then the problem is more fundamental than just the deviousness of PR agencies and the easy spreading of unfiltered information on the internet. The people who lived in the dark ages were not any more stupid than we are — if mass delusion and superstition could take them in, the same can happen to us.
CodeTech says: @ur momisugly November 7, 2013 at 6:07 am
…I’m searching for an effective, quick summary of the theory and science that I can send people to. Although there is a wealth of knowledge and references at WUWT, there’s still no clean, simple summary that would start a believer on the path to knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might want to check out Lucy Skywalker’s Green World Trust in a Nutshell: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Problem.htm
or John Kehr’s (The Inconvenient Skeptic) The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
or Jo Nova’s Skeptics Handbook: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
Lucy has several other suggestions.
One of the weaknesses of the general public that the global warming PR people pray upon is our brain’s desire for certainty about the future. We seem to be attracted to those who predict the future confidently. That is why IPCC say ( in error in my opinion) that they can predict the future 100 years with absolute certainty and , that the science is settled and firm This claim continues to be made despite 17 years of failed predictions and the continued need for more studies and funds indicating that the science is far from being settled or firm . Yet the media and public continue to follow the failed science as if it was still gospel. Even the policy makers tried to hide this fact from the public. . I recently confronted a major TV network on their biased science reporting when they fail to report any science or news that disputes the current global warming science or points out the serious errors in their science. The answer that I got is that the network supports the view that global warming is all anthropogenic and this dominates their coverage. This continued to be their policy even after it was shown to them that the AGW science which in their view is supported by the majority of world’s climate scientists has proven to be false for 17 years and the science is far from being settled. As long as there is free money from our governments to underpin this deception, this nonsense will continue. The media continue to follow and believe the opinions of experts even after they are shown to be completely false.
Global warming,Climate Change take your pick of the JUNK SCIENCES even in the smoking wars!
What proof exists of any smoking disease………..None
The junk scientists doing GW are using the same epidemiology statistical junk science and calling it proof as is used for tobacco studies and its all STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF TORTURED DATA!
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby
Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/13287
Also a good simple understanding of the fundamentals, of physics, is of great aid in mocking this voodoo nonsense. The atmosphere’s a mass the sun doesn’t heat, so it’s cold. It’s attached to a solid planet the sun does heat so it’s warm.
Go look at the IPCC/Kiel/Trenberth cartoon exemplifying it all: a magical gas mirror in the sky receiving 168 watts per sq meter but emitting, 324 back to it’s source, and (left out of the cartoon so as to not be even more ridiculous) an additional 324 up, out of the back of the mirror, toward the upper atmosphere, and space?
The very best way for you to learn the utter bunk of the Magic Gas effect is have your very most basic fundmentals in place, and then go read their hockey.
So to speak. Literally speaking of that, they had a guy, whose name is Dr Mike Mann, who swore that he invented a statistical algorithm that always spits out hockey stick shaped graphs, even when fed calibration data,
to analyze some bore holes of trees,
turning those tree bore hole samples of wood into 600 year old treemometers accurate to within a tenth of a degree.
He took a couple of hundred from a stand in Norway and claimed the entire planet has not been as warm as it is now for like 1,000 or more years.
His grant whoring work involved the simple elimination of all previous known climatic events within the past thousand years and added, you guessed it, a hockey stick shaped projection to current temperatures, with bombastic claims of 90s percentiles certainty he was right.
* * *with work his own colleagues were later seen mocking saying, “I ran a thousand iterations of Mike’s work last night, it gave me hockey sticks. I guess that’s what McIntyre was talking about.”
Mann HID his WORK for YEARS until he accidentally left it, on an ftp server for one of his associates, and one of the citizen watchdog characters downloaded it. He had worked for mining companies and seen people run statistics scams trying to do the bums’ rush on claims that land was worth mining, so he just kept pecking away, trying each and every day, at the University Mann worked at… one day, *bingo,* Mann had left his work up online overnight which he used to tell Congress, he had invented magical treemomiturs. It was the Hockey Stick algorithm.
Just the whole thing is obviously fraud. That’s your first real clue to it all, it immediately hits you that every single claim made by those who try to portray it as legitimacy or science, is a simple falsehood about less vs more, hot vs cold, light vs dark..
their claim is that literally there is a giant infrared light built into the water and CO2 of the planet controlling the temperature, and making it warmer as more is added, not colder.
You can’t add refrigerants and radiation screening particles to a space between an object and an energy source and through installation of refrigeration and that energy screen, make the object behind the refrigerating screen, warmer.
When the whole thing first came out you constantly saw it being referred to – as “absurd.”
It is absurd, it’s not even possible from the stand point of a refrigeration technician’s understanding about warming and cooling.
Warm air rises and drags cooler air by the earth. It gets to a certain height and the lack of competition for space creates molecular expansion; this in turn creates physical change in geometries of photonic energy on board the molecule, and the molecule itself. The molecule dumps energy skyward because of energy charge differentials above being greater than below, generally, and this whole concept is vastly aided through the much more potent convection mechanics of water; which is about a percent of it all, and acts as
like I said – phase change, refrigerant for this system.
This is a large gas array, a screen, between an illumination system, and a target. The vast majority of the mass of the screen is inert to the illumination, nitrogen and oxygen don’t really interact a lot so their temps aren’t really much altered,
the infrared resonant gases block substantial sunlight, and warm some.
But there you are again with the voodoo : infrared gases are the ONLY ones that really interact much with the sun, and they spend all day every day, REJECTING about a quarter or whatever it is of the total sunlight load.
If you add more of them, you have to first REJECT more before you can consider the concept of how much initially gets by, that can’t get out.
And remember on the back side of the planet’s atmosphere all night, there’s the energy sink of deep night time space.
How great a stream of energy’s being REJECTED by infrared gases
versus how much is even available to CONSIDER being handled, coming off earth?
It’s not even comparable. It’s several times the intensity difference.
When they block more than they keep in for any length of time that’s -again – called cooling.
Seriously to any of you who are learning of this for the first time: learn your basics, your fundamentals, and you’ll own the argument because – really –
they have no reality based argument, as soon as they tell you, they dropped a warm rock into a frigid fluid bath, and that rock warmed.
@harleyrider1978,
Certainly there is a lot of chaff out there amongst the wheat. One just has to be able to separate the two, which is not always easy. It doesn’t mean throwing out the wheat, though.
People have a tendency to want to blame a certain thing in particular for negative outcomes, when the truth is far more complex. But, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the warnings, for example about smoking. In the end, it is up to each individual to weigh the pros and cons of how they choose to live. It is, and should be, an ongoing process.
The article would have been much better if proofread by someone other than the author.
Brian H says:
November 7, 2013 at 1:34 am
The site RealClimate is owned and (richly) funded by the activist PR firm Fenton. Just try tracing its connections!
Indeed, I’m reading some emails to that effect right now.
Wonderful article…..good reading. Lets wait another 3 – 4 years and the Warmist
house of cards will crumble down….and all PR will not be able to save it…..
Talking about the search of truth: Hopefully, Anthony will soften up more to those who
are on the way to the truth….JS
Well, not exactly.
Experiments on animals recreating long term high particulate inhalation show and always have, that when you coat the lungs, the breathing system’s functions choke back, and performance suffers. Eventually parts designed for proper through flow, working under abnormal back pressure, and working with improper pH limits and oxydation/reduction chemistry, fail.
The world of medicine is replete with the highly reproducible photographs of smokers’ lungs vs non smokers’ lungs in cadavers.
Even a Harley has an air filter. Ride the bike through varnish mist long enough or even wood smoke, and there’s gonna be a physical, and eventually a chemical-charge induced physical, change in structure of the filter; and obviously there’s going to be the performance issues that co-exist with the evolution of that accelerated physical, chemical, material break-down, process.
So nobody’s going to be probably joining you in the charge to ramp up tobacco usage.
That’s just nasty.
and a very real fire danger,
and a dental health danger
to boot.
=====
harleyrider1978 says:
November 7, 2013 at 7:05 am
What proof exists of any smoking disease………..None
Experiments on animals recreating long term high particulate inhalation show and always have, that when you coat the lungs, the breathing system’s functions choke back, and performance suffers.
Smokers lungs are used for transplants with similar outcomes of survival.
Human lungs ‘brush’ themselves clean of contaminants
Friday, September 07, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Human lungs contain a tiny network of constantly moving “brushes” that flush contaminants out of the respiratory system, according to research conducted by scientists from the University of North Carolina and published in the journal Science.
Scientists have known for a long time that the respiratory system protects itself by means of a coating of mucus, which is sticky enough to trap pollutants and keep them from reaching the body’s cells. When needed, the body can expel this mucus through a runny nose or a cough.
“The air we breathe isn’t exactly clean, and we take in many dangerous elements with every breath,” said lead researcher Michael Rubinstein.
“We need a mechanism to remove all the junk we breathe in, and the way it’s done is with a very sticky gel, called mucus, that catches these particles and removes them with the help of tiny cilia. The cilia are constantly beating, even while we sleep.
“In a coordinated fashion, they push mucus, containing foreign objects, out of the lungs, and we either swallow it or spit it out. These cilia even beat for a few hours after we die. If they stopped, we’d be flooded with mucus that provides a fertile breeding ground for bacteria.”
Sources for this article include:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19357090
http://www.sciencecodex.com
http://health.usnews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037099_lungs_contaminants_respiratory_system.html#ixzz25oTsdUCA
Experiments on animals recreating long term high particulate inhalation show and always have, that when you coat the lungs, the breathing system’s functions choke back, and performance suffers.
Smokers lungs are used for transplants with similar outcomes of survival.
Human lungs ‘brush’ themselves clean of contaminants
Friday, September 07, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Human lungs contain a tiny network of constantly moving “brushes” that flush contaminants out of the respiratory system, according to research conducted by scientists from the University of North Carolina and published in the journal Science.
Scientists have known for a long time that the respiratory system protects itself by means of a coating of mucus, which is sticky enough to trap pollutants and keep them from reaching the body’s cells. When needed, the body can expel this mucus through a runny nose or a cough.
“The air we breathe isn’t exactly clean, and we take in many dangerous elements with every breath,” said lead researcher Michael Rubinstein.
“We need a mechanism to remove all the junk we breathe in, and the way it’s done is with a very sticky gel, called mucus, that catches these particles and removes them with the help of tiny cilia. The cilia are constantly beating, even while we sleep.
“In a coordinated fashion, they push mucus, containing foreign objects, out of the lungs, and we either swallow it or spit it out. These cilia even beat for a few hours after we die. If they stopped, we’d be flooded with mucus that provides a fertile breeding ground for bacteria.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037099_lungs_contaminants_respiratory_system.html#ixzz25oTsdUCA
The world of medicine is replete with the highly reproducible photographs of smokers’ lungs vs non smokers’ lungs in cadavers.
Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”
Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”
Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”
The Black Lung Lie
Posted on August 6, 2012 by Frank Davis
A discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations:
http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!
It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):
(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.
[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
Bruce Cobb says:
@harleyrider1978,
Certainly there is a lot of chaff out there amongst the wheat. One just has to be able to separate the two, which is not always easy. It doesn’t mean throwing out the wheat, though.
People have a tendency to want to blame a certain thing in particular for negative outcomes, when the truth is far more complex. But, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the warnings, for example about smoking. In the end, it is up to each individual to weigh the pros and cons of how they choose to live. It is, and should be, an ongoing process.
Bob the ongoing process is an 80 year historical process of PROHIBITION……Its happened before to tobacco and its happening again now as we speak.
Same lies,same propaganda and the same REPEALS will be forth coming
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.