Eric Worrall writes about “The Conversation” Austalia’s favorite hangout of climate doomers:
As the great unwinding of the more extreme climate alarmist positions gathers momentum, “The Conversation” provides us with a hilarious new excuse for some of the wild claims made by climate scientists over the years. Apparently they weren’t lying or exaggerating, they were “oversimplifying”.
According to The Conversation;
“To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human. Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. So yes, scientists do exaggerate. … In general, limiting or extreme results come about because a simplified analysis is missing an important feedback or because an intricate model is being “exercised” by simulating an extreme scenario.”
![dog-homework[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/dog-homework1.jpg?quality=83)
So you see, its not the fault of advocate scientist that anyone took their claims of imminent arctic melting, approaching climatic catastrophe, and irreversible tipping points literally. Its our fault, because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios, which they didn’t expect would actually occur.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think there were some typos so I fixed them:
“To lie is human, and scientists are human. Falsehoods and the mendacity of public deceit are the basic rhetorical tools of human self interest. So yes, scientists do mislead… In general, fabricated findings come about because honest analysis alone cannot produce the desired results. If the science is missing important evidence the climate models must be exercised to produce extreme scenarios.”
Or they could have said:
.
“Ok, so were fibbed little. Is that so horrible?
“Yes we have lied but our quality of dishonesty was robust”.
“Is it really lying if all of us and our friends think it is OK to do so?”
“Can we all just move on?”
“Yeah but what about all that other stuff we said that was sorta true?”
“Don’t listen to Watts, he’s been debunked by Wotts?
“It’s not a lie if you believe it!”
Of course a tree makes a noise when it falls even if there’s nobody there to hear it.
I do hope, though, that claims of scientific exaggeration are seen for what they are: advocacy targeted not just at winning the rhetorical argument but also aimed, rather cynically, at undermining the evidence.
Translation: Scientists lie to the public, but if you call them on it then that’s just a cynical ploy on your part.
Most alarmists are still drinking the Koolaid.They are victims of date rape , but do not realize it because they are still under its influence .
Waking up will be painfull ….
“Computer models have shown us that flying pigs exist …“
In Rob MacKenzie’s post ‘Climate change: it’s only human to exaggerate, but science itself does not’ at ‘The Conversation’ blog concludes with this paragraph,
“I do hope, though, that claims of scientific exaggeration are seen for what they are: advocacy targeted not just at winning the rhetorical argument but also aimed, rather cynically, at undermining the evidence.”
For the source of the climate exaggeration, Rob MacKenzie points his finger at everyone other than the climate focused scientists who have been doing the climate focused research. MacKenzie cannot regain modern culture’s lost trust in climate focused science by that strategy; he makes it worse because he makes it appear that science is not self-correcting.
There is exaggeration in the climate science research itself. For evidence of it, one only need to be a part time student of the history of the IPCC processes that gave us the WG1 reports for every one of the five assessment reports.
MacKenzie has artlessly attempted to mislead us by his exaggeration of a false situation when he diverted the responsibility for climate science exaggeration away from climate scientist’s work product.
He should drop the unbelievable strategy that it was somebody else, outside of the community of climate focused scientists, who did the climate focused science exaggeration. He should adopt a more realistic strategy which says that, in exaggerating their climate science research findings, the climate focused scientists were just doing what the IPCC centric type of science needed them to do.
John
Put lipstick on this pig all you want. It is merely more of the end justifying the means. When the end is “saving the planet and our great grandchildren”, then lying and exaggeration is completely justifiable. Millions usually die when such “noble cause” thinking becomes institutionalized and further excused. May gaia save us from such evil. GK
“They’ll never believe I ate your homework.” because they don’t know I’m a coprophiliac.
“Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. ”
Hey…I thought tools of human intercourse were…well, you know…aww, never mind! 😉
What it the different between an exaggeration and a lie? All exaggerations are lies, but not all lies are exaggerations.
Exaggerating the size of the fish catch is comical amongst friends. The difference is cheating a tax paying society out of billions of dollars with fraudulent science as a means to pad their self interest. A harmless lie about fishing vs a harmful lie that has a global impact on economies and the quality of life. Then blow it off as being human.
In the 1950’s through 1960’s there was a civil defense action to prepare the U.S for a possible nuclear attack. I viewed it as being legitimate. Now we have the CAGW crowd extracting billions and billions of dollars on a false and exaggerated scientific based lie.
During the 1950’s, monster movies and sci fi flicks invariably chose atomic power as the cause of all those
monster mutants, powered rocket ships, natural disasters that weren’t really natural, rocket pistols, you name it. Today’s Climate Deniers (those who claim non-existant warming) have latched onto carbon emissions as their go-to evil substance, which they need to defeat, not with Honest John rockets like those used on Universal’s back lot, but with verbal activision, do-able from your couch or recliner. Ahhh, the good old days, when a little sweat was required to save the planet.
And now for something completely different. “This parrot isn’t dead, it’s … resting.”
Hmm, somehow by the time I had completed my PhD in theoretical physics I had been indoctrinated with the necessity of carefully avoiding exaggeration.
Funny how the simplified analysis is always missing the negative feedbacks…
Before us “deniers” get too much on our high-horse about the warmists’ brazen-hypocrite, agit-prop excesses, we need to be sure “our own house” is clean. And, in that regard, I feel ethically bound to draw attention to the egregious mischaracterization of warmist anatomy that appears in the “Bishop Hill” blog’s otherwise astute, Oct 18 blog post, “Dogs that didn’t bark”.
In particular, the blog-post author grossly mischaracterizes the reaction of warmists, to a GWPF lecture given by Owen Patterson, as the “green blob…stamping its feet a great deal…”, with the suggestion that that activity is a “green blob” show of impatience or something of that sort.
Certainly, we have every right to expect a more scientific accuracy in the blog-posts of a distinguished and prestigious blog like “Bishop Hill”, than seen above. In particular, the canard that the “green blob” “stamps it feet” has long been discredited among thinking people. Rather, the simple truth of the matter is that the so-called “stamping feet”, referred to in the “Bishop HIll” post, are actually the “green blob’s” aptly-named, “jack-boot” cilia, marvelously adapted to stamping on a human face forever, deployed in a threat display.
We can’t afford to have it said that us “deniers” are willing to criticize the “green blob”, but not one of our own.
“we need to be sure our own house is clean”
There is no “we”. It appears you are wearing false colors.
You have a house and it is your responsibility to see that it is clean, just as my responsibility is to see that my house is clean. Skeptics are not a group. It is uncertain that we’d get along in person.
There is no “us deniers” either. What (if anything) you “deny” is your choice and quite likely different than what I deny, since I deny very little other than exaggerated claims. Reasonable claims are still on the table; maybe waiting for a bit more evidence before I spend more of your money you don’t have.
Michael 2,
Coup d’oeil time!!! I’m gonna go out on a limb here and wildly guess that I’m dealing with a “willard”/Lewandowsky wannabe, hive-tyro, brainwashed, post-graduate dumb-kid tryin’ to make a name for himself.
You say, Michael 2, ol’ sport, “…it’s uncertain we’d get along in person”. On the contrary, Michael 2, there’s not the least “uncertainty” about it–we’d most certainly not “get along” ‘cuz I’ve not the slightest interest in being your “buddy-buddy” (the HORROR!!!). What a presumptuous little, zit-impared creep-out you are, Michael 2! But if you’re desperately looking for “a friend”, and apparently you are, I recommend you try the Deltoid blog–I’m sure the ‘toids would just “luv” your little act.
A curious gaffe-booger, your last, Michael 2 (gaffe: an impolitic, maladroit, loose-canon truth, uttered by some doofus, totally clueless, expendable good-comrade that is in gulag-worthy mis-alignment with the hive’s party-line, “Big-Lie” orthodoxy), “Reasonable claims are still on the table, maybe waiting for a bit more evidence before I spend more money you don’t have.” Speaks for itself, right, Michael 2?
C’mon hive-bozos! Quit flickin’ your Rorschach, hot-button provocation-zingers my way, hopin’ for an opening, will yah?–that’s my schtick.
“because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios”
The ones with feeble intellects are those who are incapable of explaining a complex subject to a lay person. How many times do we see people with superior intellects needless using complex terms, ie: AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), when a perfectly well known term will do ie: Humans would suffice?
The right response is, “You make my point.”
If exaggerations aren’t science, then …
So a scientist can get away with saying 2+2 = 5 nowadays. With exaggeration as an excuse.
We’re doomed.
For large values of 2, this is true! (See, you must add in some weasel words to make your point.)
Large values… how could I forget
I stand corrected. Long live AGW 🙂
“These models of reality………”
What the……..? Climate Models based on reality. How that’s funny.
That’s falsifiable on its face. How many people have lost their jobs for not buying into the hype? How about George Taylor, the state climatologist of Oregon who was fired for saying he didn’t believe humans were responsible for “climate change”? He also lost his job at Oregon State University for the same reason. David Legates in Delaware was asked to step down from the same office for the same reason. And there was Patrick Michaels in Virginia forced out for the same reason.
Not only did these people promulgate impossible “worst case scenarios”, they actively went after the heads of anyone who defied these views. Anyone who dared to state publicly that they had doubts that humans were changing the climate of the planet was ousted. Why? Cash and control. If these people can make the rank and file believe that humans are causing a climate disaster, they can then leverage that fear to extract cash from those people and exercise more control over energy — and when you control energy, you control the entire economy.
Anyone who causes even the slightest doubt on their grab for cash and control must be treated ruthlessly. They have even gone so far as calling for imprisonment. These climate hucksters aren’t just wrong, they are evil.
Admitting to exaggeration insults your loyal followers who were convinced, in part, by your professions of honesty and other high moral behaviour. As soon as an MSM gets a high-level CAGW alarmist to admit that hyperbole has been part of the Group to achieve a Nobel Goal, the emphasis shifts to the Nobel Goal. Not a good place to go.
The New York and Californian marches of September 2014 were noticeable for their anit-capitalist, anti-individualis, political, economic and ideological back-story. The MSM may not have spoken about it, but was surely aware of it. The more Oreskes speaks about China being the role model for both governmental authority and control of the indiviudal, all those who want to live their lives to the best of their abilities, and outside intusion by forces who do not represent their interests, thr more the eco-green will alarm their former supporters. Is George Soros really going to say he thinks Oreskes is bang-on, that the Chinese Polituburo should be handed the keys to the homes, jobs and lives of the United States? Retorical question, of course.
There are so many excuses offered for the Pause that the only one to solve the conundrum for the Gore-Greenpeace-Suzuki cabal is that their words (and films) were purposeful and honest as a means to “raise consciousness” and make a Good Thing happen. Their admission would be that the certainty was reall, in the Ideilogical sense, but a little “early” in a technical sense. They still stand behind the direction and importance of their non-fossil fuel future, but agree the time element was a tad too small. But by doing that they revert to the clear ideological slant, and undermine the need to make great socio-politico-economic changes – at least in the near-term. Which is where all the spending is supposed to be done. Which allows nothing to be done while allowing them to save face.
Which, interestingly enough, appears to have happened/will happen at the Paris Feel-Good Conference in the coming week: a consensus that all will agree to submitting Plans,, but without a reall timeframe for those plans to be finalized or perceived as a committment, and with a clause that says any Plans do not means that anyone is tied to a timetable to put the Plans in place, or even be be accountable for not putting the Plan in place.
When Face is being saved, progress is at a glacial pace.
Well, since you mention it… dogs ARE eating more homework these days, according to the models. Proof of warming!
From the Conversation: “Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse.” Nope, not rhetorical tools. What it is, is the Conversation seeks to F* with us,
Now we know they are are on the run: running scared. The ‘Doomers’ are seeing the end of their world. They see the risk of running out of other people’s money, which funds their life-style. In a generation to come history will show our grandchildren how much they were conned by those who could should have known better. Today’s scientists shall enjoy a bitter harvest.
Sorry to do a frequent post, but something I read up thread got me thinking: What would you ask Mann?
So, I got to thinking, what about ‘Desert Island Discs’ – a long-running radio programme on BBC where the guest chooses eight records to take to a desert island (duh).
Well, I figure It would be good to have something like eight questions to ask of ‘climate scientists’ (under oath) about their work, and how they see it in truth – assuming they had to take them to a climate-changed world based on their predictions.
Of course, the ‘luxury item and book’ they would be allowed to take would have to be – perhaps – a thermometer and Montford’s ‘The Hockey-Stick Illusion’.
The Conversation, Just one of the Australian academic framework devices to derail dissent delete and mock a comfortable edifice to protect the propaganda from honest and earnest inspection. That academia could even think of erecting such an impediment to science says a lot about Australian Academia and even more about those that tolerate these insidious individuals who seek to control and manipulate. A one sided conversation of an authority structure. I know this because I was one that had to endure the product of their deception, along with many fine scientists who have tried to present real science to the Australian people.
I see these protective barriers put in place to enable closed minds within those organisations to create and maintain propaganda to deal with those who question their authority, A snide vehicle to promote themselves and then be quoted as an academic authority in itself and maintain the frame of respectability and purity of academia and now the rotting flesh is being exposed, to excuse themselves for their part.
The more exposure of their insidious intent the better for all, a scourge that has afflicted all of the Australian Academic institutions. They need to be exposed as now they are becoming a vehicle for the perpetrators to appeal to the public for donations to maintain things like the Climate Council, so those that had automatic prime place at the Taxpayer trough, can now milk the public pocket for their greater good.
They had their day, now time to get rid of the dirty laundry of academia, it stinks!.
I think its just a funding thing. If they can get more grants for spreading more bull, more bull will be spread. We need to develop a formula for paying them for the more truth that emanates.
“they were just talking about worst case scenarios”
I love how the IPCC scenario “C” was the “business as usual” scenario, but now they make their comparisons to scenario “B” as most likely, as if there is a scenario more likely than business as usual.
It makes about as much sense as those who argue proxy truncation is fine because the correspondence is perfect where you don’t know what it is, even though it is clearly awful where you do know what it is.