By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
To those of us who have dared to question on scientific and economic grounds the official story on global warming, it is a continuing surprise that there is so little concern about whether or not that story is objectively true among the many who have swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker.
For the true-believers, the Party Line is socially convenient, politically expedient, and financially profitable. Above all, it is the Party Line. For those who think as herds or hives, it is safe. It is a grimy security blanket. It is the dismal safety in numbers that is the hallmark of the unreasoning mob.
But is it true? The herd and the hive do not care. Or, rather, they do care. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?” They are offended, shocked, outraged. They vent their venom and their spleen and their fury on those of us who ask, however politely, “But is it true?”
Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.
They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.
The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.
Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? What you get is the global warming scare.
As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.
Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.
“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What We’re Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus!”
And so, round and round, ad nauseam, ad ignorantiam, ad infinitum.
Every one of those exclamatory, declamatory statements about the climate is in substance untrue. Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities and government bodies. For instance, the notion that there is a 1 in 10 chance the world will end by 2100 is the fundamentally fatuous assumption in Lord Stern’s 2006 report on climate economics, written by a team at the U.K. Treasury for the then Socialist Government, which got the answer it wanted but did not get the truth, for it did not want the truth.
Previously, you could count on getting nothing but the truth from the men in white coats with leaky Biros in the front pocket. Now, particularly if the subject is global warming, you can count on getting little but profitable nonsense from your friendly local university science lab. They make the profits: you get the nonsense.
The central reason why what Professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” is damaging to civilization arises not from the staggering cost, soon to be $1 billion a day worldwide. Not from the direct threat to the West posed by the avowedly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian policies of the UN, the IPCC, and the costly alphabet-soup of unelected busybody agencies of predatory government that live off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity. Not from the dire environmental damage caused by windmills and other equally medieval measures intended to make non-existent global warming go away.
The damage caused by the Great Lie arises from the fact that just about the entire global governing class has found it expedient or convenient or profitable to adopt the Great Lie, to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on, regardless of whether anything that it says on the subject of the climate has any truth in it whatsoever.
The fundamental principle upon which Aristotle built the art and science of Logic is that every individual truth is consistent with every other individual truth. The truth is a seamless robe. Religion – or at any rate the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe (practising but not perfect) – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.
Science, too – or at any rate the classical scientific method adumbrated by Thales of Miletus and Al-Haytham and brought to fruition by Newton, Huxley, Einstein, and Popper – was also rooted in the understanding that there is only one truth, only one physical law, and that, therefore, every truth unearthed by the diligence of the curious and hard-working empiricist or theoretician must, if it be truly true, be consistent at every point and in every particular with every truth that had ever been discovered before, and with every truth yet to be discovered.
It is in the understanding of that central principle of the remarkable oneness and self-consistency of all truth that men of true religion and of true science ought to have become united. For there is an awesome beauty in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Keats put it, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all.”
The beauty of the truth is sullied, the seamless robe rent in sunder, if not merely a few individual scientists but the entire classe politique not merely of a single nation but of the planet advantages itself, enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.
The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie. Those scientists who have been caught out trampling the truth, and those universities in which it has become near-universally agreed that the best thing to keep the cash flowing is to say nothing about the Great Lie, are by their actions or inactions repudiating the very justification and raison-d’être of science: to seek the truth, to find it, to expound it, to expand it, and so to bring us all closer to answering the greatest of all questions: how came we and all around us to be here?
We who are not only men of science but also men of religion believe that the Answer to that question lay 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem. The very human face of the very Divine was “perfectly God and perfectly Man”, as the Council of Chalcedon beautifully put it.
We cannot prove that a Nazarene made the Universe, or that any Divine agency takes the slightest interest in whether we tell the truth. But, for as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we are free to believe it. And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.
Science, though, is not a matter of belief (unless you belong to Greenpeace or some other Marxist front organization masquerading as an environmental group). It is a matter of disciplined observation, careful theoretical deduction, and cautious expression of results. The true scientist does not say, “I believe”: but he ought, if there is any curiosity and awe in his soul, to say “I wonder …”. Those two words are the foundation of all genuine scientific enquiry.
Yet the global warming scare has shown how very dangerous is science without morality. The scientist, who takes no one’s word for anything (nullius in verba), does not accept a priori that there is any objectively valuable moral code. He does not necessarily consider himself under any moral obligation either to seek the truth or, once he has found it, to speak it.
Science, therefore, in too carelessly or callously rejecting any value in religion and in the great code of morality in which men of religion believe and which at least they try however stumblingly to follow, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Yea, truth faileth (Isaiah, 59:15). The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.
That being so, we should no longer consider ourselves as laboring under any obligation, moral or other, to pay any particular heed to scientists seeking to meddle in politics unless and until they have shown themselves once more willing to be what al-Haytham said they should be: seekers after truth.
Two hundred and forty-six feet of sea-level rise, Dr. Hansen? Oh, come off it!
A merry Christmas an’ a roarin’ Hogmanay to one and all.
Warren says:
December 25, 2013 at 12:28 am
Ferdperple: your concept of insurance is sure different than the insurance one buys for the risk of one’s house burning down. It does not promise to repay you, Unless your home burns down.
=============
Who is going to repay you or your descendants if you pay your carbon tax, but temperatures rise anyways?
You mistake is to assume that by taking out insurance, this will prevent your house from burning down. But this is a false assumption, which we can see through common sense. Insurance does not prevent your house from burning down.
You make the same assumption about carbon taxes. That by paying the tax you can prevent warming. However, there is no guarantee this will happen. No one will refund your taxes if the warming takes place anyways.
In this fashion carbon taxes are not at all like insurance. Instead they are payment for a promise, with no hope of recovery if the promise is not delivered. This is the standard operating procedure for the most common form of confidence swindle. Trading money for a promise never delivered.
To paraphrase my teacher’s comment on my less than enthusiastic school performance: The good mixed with the deeply disturbing.
I feel sorry for Warren. I am sure that if he had posted on another site he would have had much support. He is wrong but I admire his courage. I am surprised though that he has been allowed to get away with this statement “Five independent studies concluded that the Climategate Controversy was without foundation…and that there was no substance to the claims against the Scientists.”
Lord Oxburgh, who chaired the main investigation was never independent. At the time he was chairman of the UK branch of Falck Renewables, a wind energy firm. He is currently a non-executive Director, Green Energy Options Ltd (GEO) (energy monitors to manage domestic energy consumption), President of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association and gives occasional professional advice to Climate Change Capital. His conflict of interest was such that he should never have accepted the appointment to chair the investigation. His careful selection of the evidence supporting his pre-determined conclusion has been widely criticised on other blogs.
The following recent finding by a committee of the House of Lords might also have escaped Warren’s notice:
“THE CONDUCT OF LORD OXBURGH
1. The Committee has considered reports by the Sub-Committee on Lords’
Conduct and the Commissioner for Standards on the conduct of Lord
Oxburgh (annexed to this report). The reports arise out of a complaint,
received on 1 July 2013, alleging that Lord Oxburgh breached the Code of
Conduct by not registering in the Register of Lords’ Interests his position on
the advisory board of the Real Asset Energy Fund, a fund which invests in
renewable energy power plants.
2. The Commissioner concluded that Lord Oxburgh had breached the Code of
Conduct, but that the breach was minor and could be dealt with by way of
remedial action, which Lord Oxburgh has now taken.
3. The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, to which, in accordance with the
Guide to the Code of Conduct, the Commissioner presents his reports, has
accepted the Commissioner’s conclusion and the remedial action by Lord
Oxburgh.”
Happy Christmas to Warren and congratulations to the noble lord in having sparked off so many comments in so short a time with a single blog.
(Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD) said:
“Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.“
Davidmhoffer: you continue to make false claims about what I said, which seems to be the basis for all your rants. First, you continue To say I said the models were accurate at the regional level. I never said that anywhere, and several times have said that they are indeed not accurate regionally, yet you continue to repeat that falsehood. 2nd you said I did not know what the assessment reports were. I certainly do and did, and have read them…I simply didn’t recall what The term AR meant. You (not so nicely) reminded me when I asked. And third, you continue to claim that the IPCC doesn’t show models confirming the uptick in 20th cent temps. Show me exactly where that occurs in the IPCC reports please…I gave you my science reference that repeats the IPCC graphs that show this.
Bobl: you state that the site is science, not opinion, yet there is much of that is everywhere. Returning to the science, you state that co2 in the atmosphere has negative feedback. That is incorrect. The physics are this: co2 increases as temp increases in the Atmosphere, due to increased releases from the oceans. Increased CO2 increases the global warming effect in turn. So increased CO2 is both a cause and effect of increased atmospheric temperature, a classic positive feedback. This can be found in any science book dealing with The physics of Climate Change. This positive feedback, and the positive feedback of the albedo effect, and the positive feedback effect of water vapor, more than offset the negative feedback effects and provide a net positive climate sensitivity to Co2 increases.
If I may be permitted to comment on the discussion between Warren and others. CAGW is a very viable hypothesis. There are all sorts of reasons to believe it could be true. There is no science to prove that it is wrong. People like Warren are very capable of writing about all the signs that CAGW is real. And he is correct.
HOWEVER, and there is always a however, however, there is no empirical data that allows us to actually measure the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, as it relates to the CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels. Once one realises that this empirical data does not exist, it follows, with all the inevitability of the inevitable, the CAGW will remain merely a hypothesis into the indefinite future. This conclusion is, of course, an anathema for people like Warren and Steven Mosher.
So the warmists will NEVER agree that the climate sensitivity of CO2 has not been measured; and probably cannot be measured. And, to me, that is the key issue in this discussion . It goes to the heart of the claims by the warmists like Warren and Steven Mosher, that CAGW is an indisputable fact. It is not.
davidmhoffer says: @ur momisugly December 24, 2013 at 7:39 pm
….. Does my citing Lovelock negate your cite of Mu[e]ller?
Ahah, yes Muller, an excellent example of the problem Lord Monckton is writing about.
“I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011
“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003″
From his consulting firm, Muller & Assoc.:
“…Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.
We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable…
and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well.
GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start. “
Perhaps having a Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” as a Muller and Assoc as a member og the ‘Team’ might have something to do with all of Muller’s publicity shenanigans. – A puppet attached to Shell Oil with money strings comes to mind. Privately held consulting firms are so very very nice for hiding money trails aren’t they?
Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis
To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:
“…The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:
1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…”
No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. Tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.
Another player is David Hone who is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser, he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he’s succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith, SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.
Then there is John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”. John H. Loudon, a Dutchman, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001 club.
As another comment said FOLLOW THE MONEY if you can’t understand the science.
steven mosher (December 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm) “It an essay about truth the monktopus not only misquotes Keats, but he gets the meaning exactly backwards. I find that ironic. Further the point of science is not “truth” in its religious or philosophical sense. It’s far more pragmatic than that. The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.”
Mosher is correct. Science can only offer coherence of observations and theory, never truth. If a scientist wishes to pursue truth, they will only succeed in abstract math which has meager funding. The theory that the rise in CO2 is manmade is coherent with most observations and theory and warming from increased CO2 is likely although dependent on cooperation from the sun.
Committed CAGW zealots like Mike MacCracken http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf use phrases like “virtually certain” not to describe CO2 rises being manmade or CO2 increases causing warming in theory, but ““significant disruptions … are virtually certain to occur.” I note that phraseologists like MacCracken are always careful not to speak of “truth” despite the title of his article. Happer, who MacCracken was critiquing also carefully does lay claim to “truth”.
MacCracken’s claim of virtual certainty is propaganda intended for a public that does not understand the uncertainties in climate science much less the absolute uncertainty inherent in all of science.
Max Hugoson says: @ur momisugly December 24, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Warren = Troll…that simple. Isn’t there a bridge to return to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
But trolls are so much fun to play with especially trolls who do not even know what AR3, AT4, and AR5 are yet tries to come of as knowledgeable..
I know, I know it isn’t nice to take candy from babies especially on Christmas day.
Bobl: a correction to my last sentence: “..a climate sensitivity greater than 1.0” rather than “positive climate sensitivity”
Warren comes across just like a 20 something Greenie likeTythers on Energy Matters, Adam Berlingo on TallBloke’s Talkshop and my niece’s son. They all appear to have been brainwashed from their schooldays and through College/Uni, they all absolutely believe in Cagw and quote from the IPCC and their favourite warmist scientists.
They totally ignore any dissenting Data, finding excuses for not looking at it or for ignoring it.
They continually repeat their rehearsed “lines” rather than actually answering, just questions like politicians.
Well I have a very serious question for you Warren, you see I have these deeds to a Bridge in London, can I interest you in buying it for a measly £10,000?
I am sure once you own it you can put up toll booths and charge the motorists to cross it and very quickly recoup your £10,000 and from then on it is profit all the way.
R Taylor says: @ur momisugly December 24, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Yes, democracy (Greek for rule by the herd) is the worst form of government, except for all the others….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I prefer a republic.
Science and religion are both the way to the truth……
in fact your beliefs will likely lead you on a way of independent research, and to not rest until the truth is asserted. That is hard work. Don’t expect to see many miracles without it:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/12/10/my-own-true-christmas-story/
A very Merry Christmas to all!!
And doesn’t Warren give us cause to celebrate!?
I mean, Warren is a construct. He is probably a mix of SkS kids hoping that they can disrupt MoB’s Christmas essay. Well, I have news for Warren: I really like him/her/them/it being here. There constant poking at the science means that there is so much more for us to learn. The responses are GOLD! I learn more from them about the science, yet so much more about the warmist clan. Absolutely priceless!!
On another note. My NY resoluiton is to post under my family name. No more Snotrocket (a poor joke that got legs); I shall post as Harry Passfield in future. All the best!.
re: Insurance
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
oh yes, that tax. the one that will decrease the temp by .006 in 90 years
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-estimates-its-greenhouse-gas-restrictions-would-reduce-global-temperature-no-more
These numbers came from our own EPA who is working so feverishly so we can save ourselves.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f
Top Middle Column
Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 (previously 0.007 to 0.016 °C) and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100
(previously 0.06–0.15cm).
Yes Warren, Let’s Do It. All it will take is Political Will and selfishness to shave .006C off the temp. (at least it’s Celcius and not F). And not let’s forget fixing .1cm of sea level rise.
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
– Friedrich Nietzsche
Christopher Monckton,
As to your sentiments expressed here on WUWT, which I assume are a sincere gesture of good will during this family and friend oriented holiday period, I return your sentiments. Happy holidays.
As to your discussion of mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) jusxtaposed with all aspects of philosophy ( metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, science, etc), it is merely irrelevant to climate science.
What is relevant to climate science versus either your Christian mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) or the mysticism of radical environmentalists is the general philosophical subject of demarcation of science from that which isn’t science. The demarcation is carried out by applied reasoning strictly without the aid of mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism).
As to your discussion of your moral mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) and of the moral mysticism of radical environmentalists, both moral mystical approaches are equivalent in view of irrelevancy to applied reasoning that is science.
Happy Holidays to all WUWT folks: commenters; owner; moderators, contributors!!!
John
Will increased CO2 increase the temperature of Earth and by how much?
It is the question.
How do you answer it?
A whole scientific discipline cobbled together a number of different physics/meteorological principles and came up with an estimate.
Then they decided to defend that estimate and the process used to arrive at it to significant extremes and never bothered to ask if it was right or not. In fact, if one bothered to ask if it was right or not, they got kicked out of the club.
It is not peer review, it is peer pressure.
This is not the way to answer an important question.
Warren;
And third, you continue to claim that the IPCC doesn’t show models confirming the uptick in 20th cent temps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said no such thing. I said that the models produced the past, but all their attempts at predicting the future have failed. I provided you links to the IPCC site and also to articles on the matter. A child can discern the difference in the predictions versus the observational results In fact, Cowtan and Way, two stalwarts of the supposed 99% you claim to be representative of, published an entire paper trying to explain away the models’ failure. They theorize that the models are wrong due to temperature changes in areas like the arctic regions where we have limited temperature data and can’t measure it. Kevin Trenberth, pretty much the top of the supposed 99% heap, head of WEGEX by acclamation, has theorized that heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans where we can’t measure it.
Your own side of the argument is scurrying around with increasingly bizarre explanations for the failure of the models.
Who should I believe Warren? You? Or the climate scientists?
I believe neither. I looked at the predictions made by the models at various points in time, and what the observational data after those points in time revealed.
[Snipped – strayed into the personal – mod]
Osborn: demonization is not argument and snark is not science. Until you figure this out, you’re unlikely to win in the Court of Reason.
Warren says: @ur momisugly December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Warren we are in the main scientists and engineers. I am a chemist for example and if I took the trouble I could list more than 50 other contributors with scientific creds. . That means We Question This is because …Most Published Research Findings Are False [Another Peer reviewed paper :>) ]
Just because a paper made it into a peer reviewed journal does not mean IT IS THE TRUTH All it means is it doesn’t have any really obvious flaws the reviewers could easily pick out. And the reviewers who are looking at that paper are looking from the basis of their own hard held beliefs.
As the famous scientist Max Planck said “Truth never triumphs—its opponents just die out, science advances one funeral at a time.”
In 1980 J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, ran experiments and wrote up the results in Bafflegab Pays He also wrote The seer-sucker theory: the value of experts in forecasting as well as more formal peer-reviewed paper Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors
Dick Pothier whom my husband (physicist) took courses from wrote an article about this in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 1982.
Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals by Dick Pothier
In short you better agree with the big shots in academia if you want a paper published. Ground breaking work is not wanted. The saga of the discovery by Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshal, that a bacteria caused peptic ulcers is a classic example of acadamia to new ideas.
Warren says: December 25, 2013 at 7:58 am
Osborn: demonization is not argument and snark is not science. Until you figure this out, you’re unlikely to win in the Court of Reason.
Warren, to Demonize – “portray as wicked and threatening”, whereas I portray you as naive and gullible, that says it all about you.
You have no court of reason, so there is no point in mentioning it, you only have the “Religion” of CAGW.
Davidmhoffer; re: are continued exchange on the models on the models. I read back through our postings. In many of our exchanges, it’s clear that you were were arguing about the confidence in the models future projections, whereas I was referring to the Wolfson lectures( which, if you will check, are not marketing but Physics) on the accuracy of the models with respect to duplicating the 20th century hockey stick. You missed my point, and I missed yours. So I need to read your link with that in mind, and you need to listen to the Wolfson lectures with my point in mind. We can compare findings after the Christmas holidays, if you want.
@ur momisugly Warren; The Court of Reason? Your own arguments have included the following logical fallacies: Argument from Authority, Appeal to Consensus, Ad Hominem, and Straw Man, to name a few. You don’t seem to understand what actual science is, or more importantly, what it isn’t, though you pretend to, and that is why you receive snark and flak.