Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on April 10, 2021 by curryja |
by Judith Curry
“Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction. – policy scientist Daniel Sarewitz
Statistician Regina Nuzzo summarizes the problem:
“This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. In today’s environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, to ignore alternative explanations for a result or to accept ‘reasonable’ outcomes without question — that is, to ceaselessly lead ourselves astray without realizing it.”
Psychologists Richard Simmons et al. find that researcher bias can have a profound influence on the outcome of a study. Such ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ include choices about which variables to include, which data to include, which comparisons to make, and which analysis methods to use. Each of these choices may be reasonable, but when added together they allow for researchers to extract statistical significance or other meaningful information out of almost any data set. Researchers making necessary choices about data collection and analysis believe that they are making the correct, or at least reasonable, choices. But their bias will influence those choices in ways that researchers may not be aware of. Further, researchers may simply be using the techniques that work – meaning they give the results the researcher wants.
The objective of scientific research is to find out what is really true, not just verify our biases. If a community of scientists has a diversity of perspectives and different biases, then the checks and balances in the scientific process including peer review will eventually counter the biases of individuals. Sometimes this is true—but often this does not happen quickly or smoothly. Not only can poor data and wrong ideas survive, but good ideas can be suppressed.
However, when biases caused by motivated reasoning and career pressures become entrenched in the institutions that support science – the professional societies, scientific journals, universities and funding agencies – then that subfield of science may be led astray for decades.
Biases caused by a consensus building process
Consensus is viewed as a proxy for truth in many discussions of science. A consensus formed by the independent and free deliberations of many is a strong indicator of truth. However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.
A scientific argument can evolve prematurely into a ruling theory if cultural forces are sufficiently strong and aligned in the same direction. Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. Nuzzio (2015) refers to this as ‘hypothesis myopia.’
If the objective of scientific research is to obtain truth and avoid error, how might a consensus seeking process introduce bias into the science and increase the chances for error?
‘Confirmation bias’ is a well-known psychological principle that connotes the seeking or interpretation of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or an existing hypothesis. Confirmation bias usually refers to unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and interpretation of evidence.
Philosopher Thomas Kelly (2005) provides the following insight into confirmation bias. As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence of what other people believe increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases. Kelly concludes that over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation.
Allen et al. (2020) demonstrate how dependence, pressure, and polarization can force a consensus, making reliance on consensus as an indicator of truth unreliable. As a result, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it, without repression or reprisal. Similarly, when strong incentives favor affirmation of a position, a consensus affirming it becomes almost inevitable, and therefore all but meaningless.
Communication theorist Jean Goodwin argues that once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but also to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.
The IPCC’s consensus-building process arguably promotes groupthink. ‘Groupthink’ is a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values. Janis (1972) describes eight symptoms of groupthink:
- illusion of invulnerability
- collective rationalization
- belief in inherent morality
- stereotyped views of out-groups
- direct pressure on dissenters
- self-censorship
- illusion of unanimity
- self-appointed mind guards
Many defenders of the IPCC consensus − both scientists and consensus entrepreneurs − show many if not all of these symptoms.
Thomas Gold (1989) discussed the dangers that ‘herd behavior’ poses for scientists, potentially leading to an inertia-driven persistence of false consensus opinion within the sciences. While herd instinct has value in sociological behavior, it has been a disaster in science − in science what we generally want is diversity. When people pursue the same avenue all together, they tend to shut out other avenues, and they are not always on the right ones.
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that is of concern. If support from peers and moral and financial consequences are at stake, then staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual; however, it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science. Mental herd behavior, even if it does not actually put a clamp upon free thinking, insidiously applies pressure to follow the fashion. The institutions that support of science − financial support, the journals, the judgment of referees, the invitations to conferences, professional recognition − are all influenced by herd behavior.
Economist William Butos (2015) characterizes the IPCC as a ‘Big Player’ in science in that it possesses all of the attributes characteristic of Big Players in markets: bigness in terms of influence, insensitivity to the usual constraints, and discretion in its ability to promote a favored direction of research. This characterization of the IPCC as ‘Big Player’ is similar to economist Richard Tol’s characterization of the IPCC as a knowledge monopoly. The IPCC’s influence in climate science is pervasive, allowing it to largely ignore the usual scientific constraints on the acceptance of hypotheses. Professional success in climate science has become more tied to the acceptance of the IPCC’s pronouncements than with the exploration of contrary possibilities.
The existence of the IPCC as a ‘big player’ and a ‘knowledge monopoly’ on climate change can lead to premature canonization of IPCC conclusions. Premature canonization refers to widespread scientific belief in a false or incomplete conclusion, which leads to suppression masquerading as rejection. Suppression occurs when the fear of social sanctions prevents ideas from being explored or empirical findings from being presented in scientific or public forums. In science, rejection occurs when an idea has been explored and the evidence has been found wanting. A classic, relatively recent case of premature canonization involves the scientific identification of causes of ulcers.
So what are the implications of these concerns for the IPCC’s consensus on human-caused climate change? Cognitive biases in the context of an institutionalized consensus building process have arguably resulted in the consensus becoming increasingly confirmed, and even canonized, in a self-reinforcing way. An extended group of scientists derive their confidence in the consensus in a second-hand manner from the institutional authority of the IPCC and the emphatic nature in which the consensus is portrayed. This ‘invisible hand’ marginalizes skeptical perspectives. Overconfident assertions by the ‘Big Player’ take away the motivation for scientists to challenge the consensus, particularly when they can expect to be called a ‘denier’ for their efforts and see their chances diminish for professional recognition and research funding.
The consensus building process acts to amplify personal biases, and marginalizes disagreement from either a majority opinion or the opinion of the loudest or most motivated person in the room. One can only speculate on the magnitude and importance of the biases introduced into climate science by the IPCC’s consensus seeking process.
As I noted on the thread at ClimateEtc:
The authors of the post are misinformed. They discuss the IPCC as if it was a scientific entity. It has never been one. The IPCC was formed by the UN to support the UNFCCC, which clearly have anti-capitalist, anti-growth and anti-American agendas.
Regards,
Bob
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change LINK
Thanks for the link, Steve.
A further clarification: The IPCC is a report-writing entity, not a scientific one, and the IPCC reports are used to support political agendas, i.e. the UNFCCC.
Regards,
Bob
Yes.
And Donna Laframboise’ 2011 book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is still a telling, meticulously referenced expose of just what a circus the UNFCCC and its b@stard offspring the IPCC was right from the get-go,
And the UNFCCC was specifically formed in order to find a human imprint on the Earth’s climate.
That was their goal, and we shouldn’t be surprised to see they claim to have found the imprint. They make that claim, but can’t provide any evidence to back up that claim.
So they resort to distortions like the bogus Hockey Stick chart, and propaganda to try to keep their agenda alive.
They call her Thunberg because only 10% of her Thun is above the water…
Bernie Lewin’s 2017 “Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” should be mandatory reading for everyone interested in IPCC and climate policy.
I replied already at JC’s blog. It’s a good article but misleads regarding climate science. JC doesn’t even use the word “politics”. Imagine trying to explain Lysenkoism without saying “politics”. I couldn’t. 165, or so, scientists died because they refused to bend the knee to Stalinism and Lysenkoism. It may have led to millions more deaths as commissars took an optimistic view of future crop harvests. Here we are, 90 years later, at the start of a grand solar minimum. Cold since February here in UK. Agricultural crisis in France. Still they lie about man-made climate change. Why can’t they ever learn from evil done in the past misusing fake science?
The effect discussed applies to everyone, including you Bob.
Well he was broadly right about ENSO ten or twelve years ago, and you would know it if you had any inkling about understanding scientific data …… but, sadly …..
You have yet to manage even singular “think” loy-dodo.
You are totally gullible to the AGW meme,
… no matter how little fact you are capable of producing to support your deep-seated, brain-washed AGW group-non-think.
Yes Loydo,
but if the effect applies to everyone, then it also must apply to the effect itself, meaning that the effect isn’t actually real, but a perception created solely to explain an observation that people agreed on.
Hence it doesn’t exist and therefore, by extension, doesn’t apply to Bob, meaning he is right to discuss it. Probably.
Also, there seem to be rabbits in this hole I have just leapt into… Help! 😀
This is true.
But it must be weaker for minority views as they hear the “mainstream” in general discourse.
The consensus viewpoint is far less challenged.
I totally agree.
The leaders of each IPCC technical sections are the who is who, of the Climategate movement. The people are activists, not independent scientists. That is not science.
It is a fact that after 30 years there is no mechanism to explain the past cyclic climate changes. That is unbelievable.
This graph shows the cyclic warming and cooling that occurred in the recent past, during this interglacial period.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
There is a reason why the Climategate movement will not allow debates. They cannot defend the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives/controls the climate theory in an open debate. They cannot explain the cyclic temperature changes that have the same periodicity in both the interglacial and glacial period.
It is not possible to do science when a person will be fired or blackballed for publishing/discussing, a study that does not support the Climategate Movement.
With rise of the BLM movement/University control, media control, (‘Left’ wing organized violence and intimidation) there is a physical danger, in addition to almost certain job loss, for anyone scientist who questions/attempts to scientifically disprove the movement’s dogma.
We have been told the time to ‘discuss’ climate change is over. Climate journal editors are fired for publishing studies that do not support the climate change dogma.
The IPCC started with a conclusion that is not backup by facts/does not explain the paleo record. There has been zero effort, by the IPCC or the climate change scientists, to determine what is really is causing abrupt cyclic climate change ‘climate’ change like the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change.
Scientifically there is no explanation for the past cyclic climate. The past cyclic climate changes, have the same signature as the current warming. Same regions warm. Like the Greenland Ice Sheet.
The non physical Bern Equation (the equation that ‘determined’ the resident time of anthropogenic CO2 emission in the atmosphere was 75% 200 years and 25% for ever (not removed) is one of the best examples of IPCC fabricated ‘science’. There is no AGW without the Bern equation monkeying/non physical assumptions.
Yes William, absolutely spot on. And, of course, we should remember that the IPCC was set up specifically to investigate MANMADE global warming.
Yes, the IPCC’s job was to find a human cause for climate change, and since the members of the IPCC want to continue working, they pretend they have done their job and have found a human cause.
As a result, the world is currently attempting to spend Trillions of dollars they don’t have to fix a problem that was created out of whole cloth by the IPCC and the Climategate Charlatans.
“The leaders of each IPCC technical sections are the who is who, of the Climategate movement. The people are activists, not independent scientists.’
IPCC members are chosen by the environmental agencies of member governments, and thus are biased from the get-go.
“With rise of the BLM movement”
I hear one of the co-founders of the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement just bought herself a nice new home for which she paid about $3 million.
Destroying cities and society pays well for the BLM leadership, doesn’t it.
How many words here, in Part 2 good grief!
Only 2 words are required.
We all know by now, symptomatic of the long-term use of chemical depressants in the Human Diet.
viz:
Only three words required for you:
A simple acronym. FM, and it ain’t related to radio.
I’m sure there are some out there who know what I mean!
AGW: Manage and Control
Were I wrong, one would be enough. Einstein.
If skeptics are wrong to be skeptical about Human-caused Climate Change, one piece of evidence would be enough to cause a change in that thinking.
Fortunately, for skeptics and the world, there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.
Unfortunately for alarmists, they have no evidence to show humans are causing the climate to change so they have no way of refuting the skeptical claim that alarmists don’t have any evidence. In this case, alarmists have to hold their tongue (as they will do here) because they don’t have anything to say.
Okay, but we should also at least mention the fool climate change industrial complex out there helping this process along. The harder it pushes with ridiculous claims the more it awakens skeptics.
Questions that aren’t asked
Two of my favorites:
When is this acceleration of rising seas going to begin to happen?
By 2100, methane is on course to increase global temperature by how much?
The first paints an image of flooded coastal cities.
The second is already seeing damaging regulation that outlaws usage of natural gas.
The Ruling Theory quagmire. Beware.
The UN and IPCC are political organizations.
It has been long known to cognitive researchers that the human brain only sees what is important to it. There are way too many things going on all around us to attend to every one of them all the time, so our brains designate most of it as irrelevant for the current moment and ignore them. But that can leave us blind to things that we are not aware could be important. This is how illusionists fool us so easily. It also explains confirmation bias and many other cognitive biases. This is a problem for the scientific method, but one that can’t really be completely overcome because this is just how our brains work. It can however, be mitigated to some extent by being aware of it and encouraging independent thinkers and ideas, even if they seem pretty “fringe”. After all, it is frequently these fringe thinkers that make the huge leaps in the advancement of human knowledge, not the consensus seekers.
Be glad it works that way. Can you imagine what even one day would be like if “our brains didn’t designate most of it as irrelevant”? Then there’s the necessity of learning to filter out the repetition before it drives you mad. Run your mind over how many times we’re forced to endure “covid-19 and pandemic” repeated over and over. Add “climate change” to that and it’s a wonder we’re not all ready for an institute.
It is one reason that all data, and all changes to data must be noted in any study. It is why data and math must be the basis for conclusions. No more this or that bug is disappearing or growing by simply stating climate change as the reason with NO backup other than a vague reference.
The past proves the future.
Once upon a not so long-ago time published, peer reviewed, scientific consensus included:
phlogiston,
caloric,
luminiferous ether,
spontaneous generation,
water filled Martian canals,
plane Vulcan,
medical humors,
four elements of matter,
cold fusion……..
And they all turned out wrong.
RGHE theory is going to join them.
Simply ‘splain how/why I am wrong?
1) Without the atmos/albedo the earth becomes much like the moon which contradicts greenhouse theory. Yes or no?
2) Where do the GHGs get the warming energy that they trap/absorb/intercept/delay and re-emit?
I have demonstrated they can’t get it from the surface upwelling as a BB, so, what’s your explanation?
Nick,
I would like to see evidence that any of the items you mentioned were part of a “peer reviewed scientific consensus”? Take cold fusion for example while the original paper was published and peer reviewed it was never part of a scientific consensus since nobody was every able to reproduce the results and many people pointed out that there were missing neutrons that should have been there if fusion was going on. Or can you find one single “peer reviewed” paper concerning the four elements of matter?
It is also impressive to see the ability of people here to simultaneously contradictory views about the consensus on climate change. Apparently all the papers demonstrating that 97% of climate scientists agree are all wrong but at the same time the consensus (which doesn’t exist) is purely a matter of group think and hence shouldn’t be trusted.
.
Have been PROVEN to be, just like climate science, FAKE statistical GARBAGE !
So Fred,
If there is no consensus then there is no need to worry about any of the issues that Dr. Curry mentions in her essay above? Is that correct?
No.
The CON-sensus is the big worry…
It is a POLITICAL end game….
… that if implemented with destroy modern civilisation.
And you are so dumb that you can’t see it.
Why are you worried about the supposed consensus if it is “fake statistical garbage”?
You really are a brain-dead MORON.. Izzy.. just SO DUMB !!!
Because its being used to push a dangerous marxist anti-human civilisation destroying agenda.
The problem is the Elites/Politicians believe all that Human-caused Climate Change garbage. They don’t know any better. They think they are on the right track because somebody lied to them and told them that 97 percent of scientists believe in Human-caused Climate Change.
Michael Crichton said it best:
“If it’s science it is not consensus and
if it’s consensus it isn’t science.”
Actually that is wrong. Science proceeds by consensus. If you take Popper’s idea that scientific ideas have to be falsifiable and that they can never be proved true the next question is when do you stop trying to disprove a theory and start using it to explain new things and to plan new areas of research? And the answer is when there is a consensus that the results are right.
They didn’t need a 97% consensus of models to accept aerodynamics Izaak.
They just watched how things can fly.
See the difference between rationality and desktop scenarios?
Wrong. Science does no such thing. Crichton (and Einstein) were right.The only thing tat has ever truly proceeded by “consensus” is scientific mental masturbation. Consensus has been the greatest source of scientific constipation, especially now.
When??? You begin using the parts that have borne fruit through reproducible experiment. So far modeled “climate science” has borne nothing but failure and political pork. No one cares how many other people believe a thing, as long as it works.
.
ROFLMAO.
NO izzy-the-dumbest
Consensus on PROVABLY WRONG science, DESTROYS SCIENCE.
Why continue to show EVERYONE your ABJECT IGNORANCE when it comes to actual understanding of science?
Why continue to make such blatantly IGNORANT statements ?
Hmmm… given the irreproducibility crisis in science, one must first have an ability to discern the difference between reproducible and irreproducible research findings to be able to judge whether an explanation of new things is ‘right’. Consensus is a fallacy in scientific thinking today given pervasive researcher biases and freedom they have in manipulating research. A thousand scientists all publishing irreproducible studies making global warming claims tells us absolutely nothing. Stating there is a consensus that their (irreproducible) results are ‘right’ is nonsense.
False
What are you babbling about? Do you even read your own pap. Your pathetic brain has gown soggy trying to maintain the AGW myth, peer review supremacy and the 97% consensus hoax. You’ve spent over 30 years pretending your ideology is science it has become your whole life trying to validate it.
Rory,
If the 97% consensus is a hoax then nothing that Dr. Curry is talking about is relevant to climate science. Alternatively the 97% figure is right and people should be concerned about the problems of groupthink and everything else that she discusses.
Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
Step to the head of the class, son, you just busted your cherry in scientific method. You’re right, Ms. Curry is NOT discussing science. She’s discussing consensus and what that political idea has done to real science. Group-think is the standard of the Left. That’s why consensus is so important to you. It’s entirely political with only a hint of “sciency” trappings to keep the money flowing.
We already know that it is NOT right, though. Mr. 97.1% himself, John Cook proved it with his most portentous and ambitious survey: Cook et al (2013) where, through meticulous protocol arrived at the astoundingly precise metric; that 99.7% of those papers surveyed DO NOT endorse the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
I have not chosen “both ways” … just the right way.
You are correct in one thing
REAL SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK BY CONSENSUS…; ever
It works by provable evidence, of which you have NONE to back the AGW con.
What has happened is that a FAKE NON-SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is being used for blatant political purposes.
Why are you continuing to show yourself as being SO DUMB that you can’t see that is a major problem.
Fred,
”provable evidence” works by consensus. Nobody has time to test everything for themselves. Rather scientists trust each other and rely on their work in order to do their own. Take the discovery of the Higgs Bosun — the consensus view is that it exists and nobody is going to bother to build a new LHC just to see if it is reproducible. Bu practicing particle physicists are going to build on that discovery to advance their own research.
You really are a SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON, aren’t you Izzy !!
BLIND BELIEF is all you have to go by !
And yes , they have physical evidence that the HB particle probably exists.
Now let’s try again, mindless twerp..
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
See the difference, Izzy-dumbest.?
HB is based on actual EVIDENCE
AGW is based on mindless non-science conjecture.
Er, wrong! There are no such “all the papers”. The dweeb sent out hundreds upon hundreds of copies of a questionnaire to weathermen, scientists and researchers. Of those many hundreds, something like 97 returned the form, of which 90 agreed to a question “Do you think the earth is warmer today than in the year 1800?”, which was, by the way, a very cold era.
That is where the “93% of scientists agree” come from.
If you want to talk nonsense, at least research your nonsense. We may rag you a bit for talking ignorant nonsense, but for disinformation you will get ripped, boy!
“Apparently all the papers demonstrating that 97% of climate scientists agree are all wrong”
Are you still pushing that 97 percent distortion of the truth here? After it has been debunked a hundred times?
re: “cold fusion……..
And they all turned out wrong.”
Heh. Tripped on your own rope!
Depending on whether you’d actually like to (as Walter E. Williams might) put it “push back the frontiers of ignorance” we might take a gander at this gentleman’s experience:
ICCF-21 – Mitchell Swartz – “Personal Experiences During Many Years of LENR Experiments”
many years??? .. YET STILL NOTHING !!
re: “many years??? .. YET STILL NOTHING !!”
Now here is where I call you an idiot for NOT watching the video where Dr. Mitchell talks about their NANOR devices being used on cubesats …
JUST BECAUSE something does NOT appear on your event horizon DOES NOT MEAN it does not exist.To ASSUME that is highly moronic. Highly. Did I say highly?
Can I get an ‘adult’ in here to supervise these kids like fred250?
No fusion reactors providing planetary electricity ?
Now why would that be. 😉
Not on ANYONE’S horizon.
Have your pitiful little dreams, gullible little child.
.
MIGHT, PERHAPS, MAYBE.
YAWN !!
Grimm Bros had dreams too. !
Or maybe try Mills and Boon !
re: “many years??? .. YET STILL NOTHING !!”
IS THIS a ‘science’ based website – or no?
I’m taking it from fred250’s response it is not. No, it’s not … fred250 just made that quite clear. When very straight forward and quite-clear test methodologies and test ‘controls’ are made in observing certain phenomenon, and fred250, without ANY examination whatsoever, via a literal ‘sweep of his hand’ denigrates decades of hard work, it can’t be a ‘science’ website. That’s the message here. And its a pretty clear message: NO NEW INFORMATION on ANY controversial topic may be permitted. ferd250 has made up his iron-clad mind …
Where are your domestic scale fusion reactors, gullible drone !
Many years, but NADA, NIL, ZIP !
So sad. !
I keep them on the shelf behind the “domestic fission reactors”, next to the “safe vaccines”.
You won’t see much advancement or discussion here on the “sciences” of phrenology, astral projection, astrology, mind reading, eugenics and many others, either.
.
You could always PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE….. (as if)
Do domestic scale fusion reactors exist…. or not ? Simple question.
If all you can do is mindless regurgitation.. you have NO SCIENCE.
Nick wrote:
I entirely agree with the intended meaning of the statement. However, to be correct, the RHGE myth is a myth now, has a mythical past and ALWAYS will be a myth. “Turned out wrong” gives the myth undue credibility.
Climate models are based on this myth and it has not been easy to dispell. Uncloaking the myth is a challenge for knowledgeable people.
I believe I have found the best avenue to highlight the mythical nature of climate models. It is based on the fact that tropical warm pools regulate to 30C as well as the knowledge that the Nino34 region is sometimes part of the warm pools and is an important region for forecasting weather. Consequently its temperature is trendless around 27C average and is subject to close scrutiny.
Attached chart compares the output of models from two US climate prognosticators with actual measured data in the Nino34 region supplied by NOAA/NCEP.
Yes. This 30C figure stems from the liquid vapour pressure V Temperature graph; where the vapour pressure rises exponentially starting around 25C and at 30C it rises almost vertically. Thus at evaporation of water, around 30C, radiative energy input is absorbed and converted to Latent Heat at CONSTANT temperature; rendering the Plank coefficient of sensitivity as Zero.
That is why the oceans never get much above this 30C temperature in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation.
The rate of evaporation is determined by the pressure differential between this vapour pressure and the Partial pressure of water in the atmosphere.
This Latent Heat then gets pumped up through the atmosphere and beyond to space for dissipation due the buoyancy of the vapor/gas produced. A large influence on the climate and best not to be ignored.
We use all this in the Rankine Cycle driving our steam generating plants on a daily basis; albeit at very different temperature and pressures to those in the atmosphere.
The logic of the IPCC Consensus and Groupthink is quite unable to explain this 30C ocean figure which stares us in the face. Try asking and listen to the waffle!
Let’s see:
Luminiferous ether: Tesla used that paradigm to invent many incredible things. What have you invented by denying the ether? Also, compare Maxwell’s original EM formulae with Lorenz’s oversimplifications. The ether existed for science, until consensus rubbished it.
Medical humours: Oh my, you missed the recent “discovery” of the interstitium? Have you seen any of the peer reviewed and replicated research on microbiome effects on the psyche? Tsk tsk.
Four elements of matter: They are the four STATES of matter: Water=fluid, Air=gas, Earth = solid, Fire= plasma. I am waiting upon Peta of Newark to answer me on the fifth element, commonly presented by satanists, freemasons and papists as “soul”, but it is probably “space”, (luminiferous ether?).
Cold fusion: Explain how a chicken egg does not contain enough calcium to account for the calcium in a new-born chick, a development that can demonstrably be hampered by limiting the Potassium, not Calcium.
In other words, near everything you mention, is rubbished by CURRENT CONSENSUS, not science. Even your assertion on RGHE’s imminent demise is baseless; the Vatican enforced the geocentric consensus for many centuries, who knows how long we will be subjected to climastrology and warmunism?
“The world contains much more than your wildest philosophies” or what was that? One should be careful where you hang your hat, scientifically speaking.
I’m still waiting to see when people will recognize that “climate change” itself is a logical fallacy. It’s an appeal to ambiguity that can only lead to a confused discussion. Either CO2 is the temperature control knob or the whole discussion is pointless. Change should never have been an issue. We’re either dangerously warming the planet or there’s nothing to talk about.
It’s a fake phrase too for libtards to chant. There is a real phenomenon that is climate change and, in the same vein, in the real world, “progressive” doesn’t mean “Luddite”.
Amen to that!
I recently did a linear regression between the measured sea surface temperature of the Nino34 region and the increase in CO2 level over the 40 years 1980 to 2020. The correlation coefficient was 0.0024. So it IS positive and not ZERO- THE TEMPERATURE CONTROL KNOB; unlikely.
A “linear regression” … for real? All by yourself? Well … I’m truly amazed and you found a cc of 0.0024, how earth shatteringly pedestrian. Try your number play using 1940 — 2020 and see what you get. Your “positive” is statistically insignificant.
I can’t grasp what you think you found or were you just attempting parody? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter … ha – ha. If the former, you missed my point utterly.
Yep – all by myself with the aid of Excel.
Nature is very rarely linear, she much prefer cycles, they tend to be self-sustaining.
“I’m still waiting to see when people will recognize that “climate change” itself is a logical fallacy. It’s an appeal to ambiguity that can only lead to a confused discussion.”
I think that is the whole idea with activist alarmists.
Real science would try to be as clear as possible.
I agree that culture has much to do with it.
Science “consensus” includes univariant equations that yield binary results. (there are a myriad of other factors, but I think this has a rather large influence)
Presently, because of several generations of government education, emotion has substituted thinking. Another way to put this: far too many have a child-like understanding of the world around them; life is a series of univariant equations with binary results. We see it all the time.
Eating beef will cause global warming.
Driving an ICE SUV will cause global warming.
Reading Shakespeare endorses white supremacy.
Anything other than ultra low Sulphur fuels will cause acidic lakes.
Global warming kills off polar bears.
Wearing a mask saves grandma’s life.
And the list never ends. It is usually one variable, that itself is binary and the results are binary. Doesn’t matter if there are a thousand univariant equations, each and every one independently yields a binary result.
Listen to talk radio when a person suffering from this condition gets into a low level debate with the host, its like chasing a squirrel around the yard with a tennis racket. They throw out on univariant equation at a time, responding to challenges by quickly changing to another one.
Unfortunately, it seems that this is the case within academia; maybe its the publicists who distill more complicated findings into a general public consumable sound bites which are mangled even further with each retelling which ends up being a remarkably simplistic and naïve explanation of the most recent event.
That is why I love this site. The retired contributors have nothing to lose and thus seem to be able to speak more freely outside of the editing room of the institution’s publicity department.
I talk a lot about “first-order thinking”, it’s much akin to your “univariant” concept. No capability of grasping anything more complex than IF A THEN B. Introduce C and mental chaos erupts.
Does anybody else find this to be insulting as hell?
“This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception.”
Then they amplify it.
“accept ‘reasonable’ outcomes without question — that is, to ceaselessly lead ourselves astray without realizing it.”
This sort of thing paints us all, that is *all of us*, as intellectually feeble, weak minded fools who cannot tell fact from fiction. This sort of thinking may have a place in soft fields like sociology and psychology perhaps, but I can find no place for this in the physical sciences.
The whole of the enterprise of science was specifically designed to avoid such problems.
Does empirical experimentation and objective measurement ring any bells???
For Myself:
I went into science because I wanted to know how things work. I do not care how you think some system works. I do not care how he thinks that system works. I do not care how she thinks that system works.
I want to know how that system *really* works.
As it turns out, empirical experimentation and objective measurement proved to be really good tools for that goal.
So what is all the verbiage in this article all about?
This one and so many others like it, I feel, are simple apologetics for the absolute corruption of various fields of science.
“Its human nature”
“We can not help it”
“Everybody is susceptible”
BULL FRITTERS!
J. Curry dances around the issue, but finally mentions the true problem, if only tangentially.
“support from peers and moral and financial consequences are at stake”
BINGO!
Full stop
“financial consequences are at stake” Along with your career.
Climate Science is not science, it is “science”. Climate Science is purely driven by policy, 100% by policy. At this point, I think it is fair to say facts have nothing to do with it. Agree with the policy and you will be well rewarded. Disagree and you will find your career destroyed in short order.
And everybody knows it!
And this is the real problem.
Things like “confirmation bias” and “consensus” are real enough, but have nothing to do with the corruption of the sciences. They are just used as excuses to try to hide the real cause.
““financial consequences are at stake” Along with your career.”
It’s certainly true here in Massachusetts. Here, no politician, bureaucrat, academic, environmental leader, or journalist dares to show the slightest skepticism of Mann caused climate change. The few of us (mostly self employed) who do are looked at as idiots. We keep asking difficult questions regarding “climate change” and are totally ignored. This state is a true climate emergency theocracy.
Upvote for the word tangentially, a beautiful word that rolls of the tongue.
The “financial consequences” extend far past the “scientists”. CAGW has always been a vehicle to raise taxes and steal wealth. It’s about political power and the use of fear to cow populations into servile behaviors to the benefit of the Ruling Class.
Yes, a meek class of bought and paid for academics who depend on handouts from public treasuries are easily corrupted and extorted. Human nature may be to blame for this. But human nature is also to blame for the corrupters and extorters who manipulate them. The UN in particular has been a rent-seeking power-hungry group of scheming functionaries from the inception.
I only read the beginning of your rant. If you are going to deny your own cognitive bias (which you so amply display from the first sentence) then you are obviously not a scientist, have no real interest in science, and, most importantly, you have no self-awareness.
I say this from my own, well-admitted and pitiful biased view on life, of course.
If anyone wants to explore this phenomenon more deeply, I really recommend this article, it just came out:
Persuasion and the Prestige Paradox: Are High Status People More Likely to Lie?
https://quillette.com/2021/04/03/persuasion-and-the-prestige-paradox-are-high-status-people-more-likely-to-lie/
I never really realized that people attend University and become STEM majors for the “social status” (duh! …this seems like a foolish oversight now, given the number of pre-meds I have taught over the years) verses wanting to really know something as a “truth seeker“. So, if you run into a STEM person, you have to really figure out why they are in the profession to understand what position they will take on a controversial issue. If they entered for “social status” then of course they will fall on the side of climate alarm… it is so obvious now.
So, I can envisage a reversal of CAGW alarm occuring, when all of a sudden being seen as “rebel” becomes the most fashionable/ trendy thing.
Thanks for the OP !!!
Very interesting ideas.
I’m working in academic STEM research and I perceive non-verbal cues that lead me to believe the younger folks are about fed up with the older generation who are overtly political and 99% democrat/communist.
And what are they going to do about it. Will open disagreement affect their grades? Will it affect their job prospects? Are they going to be brave enough to stand up to the older generation?
One can hope, I suppose.
Suppressed disagreement has a tendency to become more explosive the longer is is suppressed. It’s a race between suppressing it out of existence before it erupts.
“Check out Henry Bauer’s “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How dominant theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth”
https://www.amazon.com/Dogmatism-Science-Medicine-Dominant-Monopolize-ebook/dp/B008AHNIGS/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Dogmatism+in+science&qid=1618088920&s=books&sr=1-1
“A great deal of the value that exists in the social world is created by consensus rather than discovered in an objective sense… our cognitive machinery evolved to be only partially constrained by objective reality.” Our social brains process information not only by examining the facts, but also considering the social consequences of what happens to our reputations if we believe something.”
Correct—there’s social reality (aka consensus reality) and there’s real reality. (E.g., God is an atheist.)
Climate Liars are masters of deceiving others.
It’s more the nature of the subject….most (probably over 90%) of the population is not capable of understanding or doesn’t have the time to study it…it’s a world problem – not the problem of just one segment of the population….it is a subject that can produce high emotional appeal….and an Inconvenient Truth – it attracts scammers and crooks and power seekers. Also, a model of the atmosphere cannot be built that would show CO2 has little or no effect.
“Also, a model of the atmosphere cannot be built that would show CO2 has little or no effect.”
We don’t need a model, we have actual evidence that CO2 has little or no effect on Earth’s temperatures.
The evidence exists in all the regional surface temperature charts from around the world that all show temperatures were just as warm in the recent past as they are today, even though CO2 levels are higher today than in the past.
This AMO chart is representative of the temperature profile of all the regional surface temperature charts:
AR5:
“The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This assessment is based on multiple lines of evidence and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance”
Doh!!
Many of the same criticisms in the article can be made against the reliance upon peer review of studies.
Here’s a thought –
since the “career” climate industry has not managed to resolve ECS more precisely than a whopping range of 1.5C – 4.5C in the 40-something years they’ve been chasing this holy grail, why not throw this field of study over now to the “non-career” researchers?
I mean, when you watch someone have 20 attempts at opening a jar, but can’t pull it off, you usually ask someone else to give it a try.
The Wason selection task is a good test of critical thinking:
My guess is B (E, 7). Please explain how I’m wrong.
I think you are right, Roger.
E must have an even number on the other side or the rule is violated. The other side of K doesn’t apply to the rule in any way. 4 is tricky because one might expect the other side to be a vowel, but the rule doesn’t say an even number cannot have a consonant on the other side. So the 7 card, if there was a vowel on the other side, the rule (hypothesis) would be falsified.
Personally, I would turn over all the cards. That would involve very little effort and the results would reveal not only if the rule was violated but might offer other insight.
It looks like “K” and “4” to me.
I completely misread the question. I missed the “turn” part. So my original answer applied to the four cards sitting there and their positions. I wasn’t thinking about turning the cards over. I was thinking “left and right”.
Using the “turn” requirement, you would have to turn over the E to see if there was an even number on the other side and you would have to turn over the 4 to see if there was a vowel on the other side. The E and the 4 could both show a vowel on one side and an even number on the other side, but the K and the 7 cannot.
I hope I got that right this time. 🙂
I originally didn’t think much of this exercise, but in retrospect it is quite relevant. Alarmists continue to flip over the same cards, without really addressing falsification, which is the essence of scientific advance. Good one, Chris.
Truer words were never spoken:
That is very true. One has to be constantly aware that your own biases may send you down the wrong-thinking path. Some people are better at being self-aware than others.
There’s a very easy way to understand their BS and nonsense over the last few decades and that is population increase and how much wealthier/ healthier we are today compared to say 1970 and 1990.
In 1970 population was 3.7 bn and life (world )expectancy about 59, yet today pop is about 7.8 bn+ and life exp about 72.
The poorest continent Africa in 1970 pop was 363 mil , life expect about 47 but today another billion more people or total of 1.35 bn and life exp about 63.
Shellenberger, Lomborg, Koonin etc know there is no existential threat or crisis or apocalypse etc and they’ve used IPCC data to prove their case.
Of course the world pop has increased by 4.1 bn + in just the last 50 years, so when do we start to wake up?
OH and the world is greening because of the extra co2 in the air.
Here again is Dr Hans Rosling’s BBC 200 countries in 200 years stats video. This takes just 5 minutes of your time and covers 1810 to 2010.
Here Dr John Christy puts their so called CAGW claims to the test and it’s all so much nonsense.
Plenty of data and evidence, point by point.
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
The “greenhouse effect” myth is the modern day “flat earth” theory. A good portion of the commenters on this site believe this unscientific rubbish.
Anyone who believes in the “greenhouse effect” has to completely disregard the fact that all three tropical oceans develop warm pools that regulate to 30C. That is not the result of some delicate global energy balance easily upset by the addition of small components to the atmosphere.
The unbridled stupidity of climate modellers who publish completely ridiculous warming trends where there can be none. That means they have to cool the past to utterly stupid levels to get a warming trend where there is none. This nonsense has to be called out. It is a sad reflection on the entire scientific community.
The con is right at the very start, the very foundation of divide by 4.
The geometry of the 2 planes the atmospheric window and the earths surface;
They divide by 4 the outgoing energy quite correctly.
The con, the slight of hand, is the dividing by 4 of the incoming solar radiation, that only comes in through half the window and only hits half the surface on a joules per second basis, and that is only divisible by 2.
Theres no such thing as average solar energy, you cannot average the intensity, averaging the intensity is the con, classing the incoming solar energy the same as the out going low quality energy is the con.
If you divide by 2 the incoming solar energy per second per square meter you get real world temperatures and real world energy per square meter measurements and you have between 1000+ joules of energy and 450 joules per square meter being absorbed by the surface on the lit side and it is that intense power of the sun that heats the earth and creates the flows of energy around the whole globe.
The only need of a flat earth 24/7 250 joules per meter cold sun hypothesis is politics and power for those that pay the professional liars to spin their horse shit to the general public.
So why do we need to have net zero emissions by 2040 or ’50 and how is this possible?
Well Pres Biden the leader of the most powerful country tells us in this video that we are facing an existential threat for humans and he actually mentions this a number of times in a couple of minutes. He also tells us we can “feel this in our bones” , but I seem to have missed that feeling.
I certainly understand the data since 1800, 1900, 1950, 1970, 1990 etc and of course the human race is today much healthier, wealthier and has a life expectancy of about 72 years. All 7.8 bn of us and that average is made up of Africa ( 63) China (76) wealthy countries like Australia ( 83) etc.
And the Pres of the UN loves the EXIST….. word and always seems to use it in any number of interviews about SLR or whatever.
Here’s 2 minutes of nonsense from the Biden donkey.
What do todays politicians care, same as todays so-called scientists and scientism, they will all be dead or old and retired with their gold plated pensions, the only thing they care about is keeping their snouts in the trough, all hustling to get to the deep end of their particular trough.
seriously what do they care about the damage their doing to the generations that follow them.
Joey is some kind of talking mannequin. His behind the scene handlers write the words for him to mouth. There are ugly things behind Joey. A Roman Emperor made his horse a senator…the USA could not do worse than Joey with a horse…maybe a goat…or a dog.
I’m curious who keeps the codes.
Demrats have been here before….President Wilson had a serious stroke but remained in office with mainly his wife becoming Prez….and President FDR was near death and finally died in office.
Perhaps it’s simply a case of everyone experiencing lots of virtual weather on the touchscreen in their pocket nowadays-
Cold snap sees heavy snowfall in Victoria (msn.com)
Cyclone Seroja destroys 124-year-old jetty and popular tourist resort (msn.com)
Now that’s really weather events over a continental island that spans weather influences from the Antarctic to the tropics but if you get bombarded with it 24/7 it’s not going to be hard to believe in climate change coming on top of drought induced bushfires followed by flooding rains. For the vast majority of Australians predominantly living in cities you seldom actually experience any of Nature’s vicissitudes but virtually you do all the time. Fertile ground for imagineering.
However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.
=====================
disagree. Consensus has no special powers to divine the truth regardless of how many individuals might agree or disagree.
Consensus is based in belief, which is better known as superstition. It is the belief that a forced change in human behavior can change the weather on a planetary scale.
Yet if human history shows anything, it is that the use of force rarely achieves the original goals.
disagree. History rather shows that force rarely achieves the STATED goals. How those statements of intent was received by the original audience depends entirely upon their cultural, religious and/or intellectual BIAS. Mostly that bias, in turn, depends upon what they consider to be the consensus wisdom.
The only way out of that vicious circle, is the constant questioning and evaluation of one’s own bias(es?), starting with the premise that one’s entire reality is held together by lying to oneself, at least once a while. How many will admit to their self-deception, the foundation of the ego? (Id?, I have perfunctory interest in psychobabble ((which I tell myself is irrelevant to my own wonderful, individualistic self))).
Also, it is instructive to translate every political truism into plain language, using an actual dictionary, but not the Mirriam Webster, for example, that just recently codified “irregardless”.
Somebody help me out here. Where is that bad side of the little warming that has been happening since the Great Lakes started forming and melting 2 miles of ice over Chicago? I can’t find it. Just askin for a friend 》
I’m just glad it’s not as hot as it was in the 1930’s.
I hope it doesn’t cool down so much in the future that it affects crops in a big way worldwide. A few ill-timed freezes could be devastating.
Check out Henry Bauer’s “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How dominant theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth”
https://www.amazon.com/Dogmatism-Science-Medicine-Dominant-Monopolize-ebook/dp/B008AHNIGS/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Dogmatism+in+science&qid=1618088920&s=books&sr=1-1
On fooling ourselves,
Readers should study a March 2021 paper authored by 15 people under the name of the Australian Academy of Science, title “THE RISKS TO AUSTRALIA OF A 3°C WARMER WORLD”. This is the latest extravaganza trying to convince the public that there really is a global threat from climate change – see their page 23 “… if damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization”. President Biden used this phrase “existential threat” repeatedly a few days ago. It is catchy and it is trendy. But is it true?
There are more than 450 references and a statement that the paper was peer reviewed by 6 named individuals. Three of the reviewers have authored or co-authored 18 of the papers in the listed references. It has long been scientific etiquette that a reviewer does not review his/her own prior publications, yet here we see the supposed top scientists in the land of climate crises doing just that. Are there other signs of a lack of scientific rigour? Yes, there are many. We readers are treated to high-level pop-science gossip instead of careful, replicated original research that we expect from the AAS.
Some examples of gossip follow.
In the paper, there are terms of reference to guide its content. “TOR1: outline the global challenge under current and future climate change for Australia.” Logically, satisfaction of that term requires that the authors know the future climate of Australia. They do not, for they cannot. They can make guesses, informed more or less by subjective probability estimates of climate change events happening. This is what they have done. They have made guesses. Then, they approve each other’s guesses.
“TOR2: define the impacts of climate change so far on key sectors within Australia, particularly in the context of mean global temperatures increasing by 1.1°C since 1870.” There is no scientific agreement that global temperatures have increased by 1.1°C since 1870. Whole continents like Antarctica and Africa have inadequate past measurements for the period 1870-1950. More than half of the global ocean area was essentially unmeasured before 1950. Further, there is unsettled debate about factors affecting temperatures, such as the urban heat island effect, the variability caused by clouds, subjective adjustments like homogenisation and several more. Nobody can put an accurate figure on global temperature change since 1870 because the required data do not exist and never have. It is good ground for gossip to thrive on more guesses.
“TOR3: define the risks that are associated with reaching and exceeding average global temperatures of 3°C (as compared to 1.5–2°C) above the pre-industrial period.” The future guesses about temperature on which the authors rely are essentially all inclusive of mechanisms involving the concentrations of Carbon Dioxide forecast to exist in the air of the future. The relation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures in the air is expressed by a term, often “climate sensitivity”. There is a problem. There is no accepted sensitivity figure. The last official IPCC statement was a tiny one-line footnote in IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. SPM page 16. It reads “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Is it not strange that future predictions of global temperatures affected by CO2 remain unquantified because nobody can agree on how small or large the effect is? This is a serious failure at the very base of the whole global warming edifice. Four decades of expensive research had failed to find the answer – yet the authors ignore this terminal scientific impediment and write as if it did not exist.
Page after page of this AAS document is open to criticism. The paper should be retracted on the grounds that it has failed to be adequately robust. Geoff S
Thanks for studying the paper for us, now I can spend my time usefully, like drinking beer, weeding the garden, playing with the dogs, harassing the children, irritating the wife… so many better things to do than read yet more fear porn by consensus sciencers.
PG
Apart from those matters we do plant breeding, philately, photography, cat showing, travel. It is a good idea to keep up with science reading if you are a scientist, if only to help show contrasts of good work and bad.
I did not read all of this horrible paper, just scanned some.
Geoff S
I won’t ask for your definition of a scientist, but I’ve alwasy thought one reads sciency stuff because it’s so darn interesting, because one must at least try to understand the nature of reality, and, lastly, to learn how to recognise bullshit masquerading as science…just in case you come across a Baal Gates, Antoninchrist Frauci or Gory Al the Melting Ice Bear.
Also, it keeps you from wasting your life on TwatFaceGram, begging to be Liked.
“see their page 23 “… if damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization”.”
There is no evidence from past history that CO2 caused “tipping cascades” in the Earth’s climate.
CO2 levels have been much higher in the past compared to today (7,000ppm verses 417ppm today) and there has never been a runaway greenhouse effect in history.
A lot of alarmists like to attribute some warming periods in the past to be the result of increased CO2 levels, but they really cannot show whether the CO2 levels preceded the warmth or came after the warmth.
And if Dr. Happer’s contention is correct that there exists a ceiling on the amount of warmth CO2 can add to our atmosphere, then the alarmists will have to adjust their speculation about CO2’s contribution to past warm spells, because according to Dr. Happer, the Earth’s atmosphere is almost “saturated” at 417ppm, and cannot add much more additional warmth no matter how much more CO2 goes into the atmosphere.
So about 417ppm is the limit for adding warmth to the atmosphere, and all the rest above that level, right up to the 7,000ppm in ancient times is irrelevant to the temperatures.
You alarmists are going to have to explain past temperature increases using something other than CO2, if Dr. Happer is correct. My money is on Dr. Happer.
If some rich person out there would be willing to loan me a million dollars on the easy payment plan (repay $500 per month until paid off), I would be happy to put this money up as a challenge to any and all to take up Dr. Happer’s theory and either confirm or find fault with his results.
It would be worth paying $500 a month to me for the rest of my life to get this CO2 argument off the dime. It probably wouldn’t be worth it to the lender. But, you never know. If Dr. Happer proves to be correct, then we can save Trillions of dollars we would have wasted trying to regulate CO2, and I might try to crowdfund the debt and maybe that lender could get their money back.
There are people walking around to whom a million dollars is pocket change. They ought to put some of that pocket change to use in a good cause: Relieving the world’s population of the anxiety many feel about CO2 and its alledged dangers.
A million dollars might go a very long way. Somebody could be a science truth hero and save us Trillions of wasted dollars, and take away an excuse from the Elites to place us all under authoritarian regimes. That ought to be worth a million to someone.
From the article: ““Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction. – policy scientist Daniel Sarewitz”
That “magnetic field” sounds a lot like the Western world’s Leftwing Media.
Our magnetic field consists of propaganda and brainwashing. Our Leftwing Media completely distorts reality, and they do so as a method of controlling people’s lives.
“However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.”
An option that appears to be rapidly being removed, not just from climate science.
Just remember, phrenology was once the scientific consensus.
citation required
“our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness,”
for a blog that repeatedly posts “no warming since [cherry picked start date]” that is rather amusing ;o)
Hands down, the $ are in denial…
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/