Two words of the headline are a pun on Liebig’s law, something we covered in the context of another big lie: the “hockey stick”.
Steve McIntyre in a post last Saturday writes of Cook’s Fake Ethics Approval and has this hilarious exchange:
================================================================
The larger issue is, of course, the contradiction not faced by “climate communications” theorists e.g. Dan Kahan who are blind to the corrosiveness of misleading/deceptive statements by climate scientists and supporters on matters that can be verified (as in FOI disputes) on their expectations to be trusted on larger issues.
Nor is it easy to understand the purpose of some of these machinations. As I’ve said before, I took zero interest in Cook’s study (or in “skeptic” protests against it) as it seems evident to me that there is a “consensus” of climate scientists on many points. I believe that the strength of the “consensus” varies by proposition and that too often climate promoters will bait-and-switch from consensus on something relatively uncontroversial (e.g. GHG having some impact) to green solution fantasies, but that is a different story.
Nor do I think that there is some smoking gun in the rater ID data. So it’s hard to understand why Cook made such an issue of it. But we’ve seen very odd conduct from climate scientists: think of Cook and Lewandowsky on the SKS link, Jones on non-existent confidentiality agreements on data, Mann on excel spreadsheets, etc etc. On matters which can be understood and verified by non-clmate scientists, we’ve seen bizarre behaviour by prominent people in the field.
In drafting this post, I chatted briefly with Lucia about this seeming blindness. Lucia wrote (in her usual forceful style):
Yep. I don’t see how people can’t see that if UQ lies and climate scientists just seem to think that’s ok, then the public will see the climate scientists as likely to be lying on other things. We are seeing tons and tons and tons of “how to communicate” documents, but none seem to point out the obvious: We need to stop being caught lying. Oh… here’s a strategy to stop being caught: Don’t lie in the first place!
Both Cook and Lewandowsky were, of course, involved in a previous incident also involving lying: see here, a conclusion which Tom Curtis of SKS also reached in respect to Lewandowsky (see here) but not Cook, though, in my opinion, the evidence against Cook is overwhelming.
Full essay here: http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/26/cooks-fake-ethics-approval/
================================================================
Indeed, lying pretty much ensures a failure to communicate.
Back in the days before the Internet existed, few people could challenge the big lies of institutions and governments. Today, pretty much anyone with a bit of intelligence, courage, and persistence can take down such false claims.
As we saw in ClimateGate, emails between scientists don’t stay private, and as we saw in Brandon Shollenberger’s exposure of the Double-secret Skeptical Science TCP forums where they discuss ratings, they don’t stay private, and in the earlier exposure where SkS members photoshop themselves into Nazi uniforms, they act as if they embrace the original idea of the Big Lie itself by making themselves in that image.
It’s a sad commentary on Climate Science that we keep going through this pattern of claims, followed by challenges, followed by denials, then ending in confirmation that the claims and the denials were both bogus. One wonders if the rest of science will ever stand up and say “Enough! You are giving us all a bad image.”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With the complete and total failure of the GMC’s ,using the data from them and proclaiming it as truth is a lie, told by liars. Truth is not relative……relative truth is just another form of lying.
Further, if a liar believes his lie to be true, it doesn’t change the fact that it is still a lie
Climate alarmism is largely driven by collectivism, which is basically the doctrine that the morally proper action is that which most benefits the collective. Accordingly, if one is a collectivist climate scientist with the belief that lying about something will benefit the collective, then not only is one justified in lying – one is morally obligated to lie.
Individualism is the opposite moral stance. According to individualism, each person is an end in him-or herself, and is not to be used for the gain of others. Lying (e.g., propaganda) is a method of using people and so is generally contrary to individualism (one may justifiably lie to enemies of individualism to prevent harm to individuals).
‘but none seem to point out the obvious: We need to stop being caught lying.’
Third rule of climate ‘science’ nothing that supports ‘the cause ‘ can be a lie no matter how factually inaccurate it may seem,
Think religion not science and you start to understand how they act like they do
PS BSTU stands for BS (Do I really need to explain that?) Tautology (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Tautology_(logic)?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com) Units.
(But maybe this comment belongs under http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/28/climate-spin-more-than-just-a-game-its-wheel-of-gore/ ?)
John Slayton says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:37 pm
When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.
-Mark Twain
another Twain quote:
“Tell the truth once, and nobody will ever believe you again no matter how much you lie.”
Anthony, we should let these people keep on lying like this. Why – because it will provide more documented evidence for their trials in a few year time. When we hit 20 years with no cooling, the MSM and politicians will start to worry, and they will need to deflect blame onto someone. And that someone will be Cook, Mann ,Hansen etc.
TYoke says:
“It was just this point that made me a skeptic back in the late 90s. The immense benefits of CO2 fertilization are overwhelmingly obvious as a theory, and relatively easy to check experimentally, yet one could read MSM and Establishment Science opinion for years and NEVER see the point acknowledged”
Same with me and same time frame. As a master gardener and somebody that predicts crop conditions and yields based mostly on the influence of weather, I was already tuned into the plant world.
It was increasingly clear that photosynthesis did not matter one iota in this discussion.
Yet, all animals eat plants or something that ate plants. World food production should get top priority. What is more important than food and water supplies?
Of course we’ve all read countless studies that conclude that catastrophic global warming/climate change will have negative consequences on crop yields/world food production.
I know a few things about this subject, which makes my blood pressure go up when I read the bogus assumptions and methods.
I always wonder if the authors are really biased, really stupid, really naive or really corrupt. The “really’s” before those adjectives are justified because conclusions that are the complete opposite of reality can’t get there from just a “little” biased, stupid. naive or corrupt.
Why should they cover it up? They are following Schneider’s and others admonition to inflate the problem. They don’t need to cover it up because of the legions of ‘useful idiots’, journalists and individuals that we hear from daily who unabashedly support even the most obvious liars’ offerings. The liars know that they aren’t fooling the minority and don’t care. If a researcher claimed warming was melting the green cheese of the moon’s surface, you will not hear Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt, or any of them say, “Hey, you guys are giving science and our cause a bad name.”
When you ask a question in different cultures you can get what are termed by anthropologists ‘high context answers’. Some questions have a low context answer in any culture. For example, “What day is it?” the answer is the day of the week, Tuesday, no matter who you ask. The context of the question is not important nor who asks or answers.
An answer needing more contextual consideration would come from the question, “Did you have sex with your wife before you got married?” Depending who was asking and who else was in attendance you might reply, “Yes.” or “No.” or “None of your business.” depending on whether the person asking was your doctor, mother-in-law or young daughter. It is called a high context answer – the response “they need to hear at the time.”
Different cultures have different levels of permitted contextual influences. In Africa one will almost never by told “No” if you ask, “Will you come to my house for dinner on the 15th?” You will be told, “Yes” because that is what you need to be told at the time in order not to offend. The culturally acceptable excuse for not coming will be generated later.
Thus high context responses to questions are governed by the culture. It is therefore obvious that in the close-knit circle of climate scientists and grant recipients there exists a high context culture where the answer to every question depends on circumstances. “Wrong answers” are provided only to save face, to protect privilege, to protect friends, to defer investigations, to gain promotion, to protect a team, to undermine opponents, to block the careers of challengers, to gain funding and to protect a fragile ego.
Climate science lies are frequently lies of omission. The Cooks and Lews are rare, thankfully. But the misrepresentation of results, particularly presenting numbers with no indication as to size of the error bars – that is rampant, and intended to mislead.
Are lies of omission contextual? Sometimes. It is a short journey from lies of omission to outright lies that are crafted to create “plausible deniability” of the Nixonian kind or “plausible consequences” of the Climate kind.
Climate models do what they are told. Therefore, climate models don’t lie. Climate modellers do and they do it with high context answers, in accordance with their cultural dictates. It is not a culture worthy of emulation.
The basic problem here is that climate science has been politicised by the political established UNFCCC about CAGW.
And a lot of money has been put on the table to prove this scientifically.
Climategate killed IPCC and most of the policy based crap that all the money had created.
Some lie to have a job and income. Some lie because they belive in The Plan, the political Agenda behind it all.
Did you hear that Michael Mann and Russel Seitz are forming a new pop duet? They are calling themselves the “Serial Hairbrush Abusers”
Here is the chorus line from their first hit, “Bald”:
And we’re
Bald, bald, haven’t got a hair between us
Bald, bald, bald as the end of a p****
(Mann and Seitz 2014)
My sister is an expert in lying. And when I think I have couth her in one she just deny having said it in the first place.
And it’s of course very bad of me to say that she has said things she haven’t. 🙂
“Did you have sex with your wife before you got married?”
Most men have more sex before than after?
Santa Baby says:
The basic problem here is that climate science has been politicised by the political established UNFCCC about CAGW.
And a lot of money has been put on the table to prove this scientifically.
A fundermental problem with this is that the actual “scientific method” involves attempting to disprove (falsify) a hypotheis/theory. The only way you can “prove” something “scientifically” is by attempting to falsify it any failing. Things like “consensus”, who belives something to be true, how many times falsification hasn’t happened, etc are utterly irrelevent to “science”.
‘The ‘Lie Big’ Law (Or why can’t John Cook tell the truth?)’
Because if he did not, but told the truth instead, he would kiss goodbye to his fame and fortune.
His a little man made big by ‘the cause ‘ true believer or not Cook if fully committed .
Paul Homewood says:
They lie because the ones who find them out (us) don’t matter.
The ones who do matter (politicians, public at large etc) never find out that they lie.
Until that is changed, they will continue to lie.
I don’t think you are quite correct. The politicians, in particular, know they lie but don’t care because it serves their agenda.
“A fundermental problem with this is that the actual “scientific method” involves attempting to disprove (falsify) a hypotheis/theory. The only way you can “prove” something “scientifically” is by attempting to falsify it any failing. Things like “consensus”, who belives something to be true, how many times falsification hasn’t happened, etc are utterly irrelevent to “science”.”
A lot of money and enormous organizations, both nationally and globally has been build to try to make the political established UNFCCC more like a scientific fact?
( to ossqss): my Gran said something similar 2 good liars have to have good memories”
The bigger lie there was that somehow workstation hard drive crashes wipe all the relevant data from the servers.