Truth or consequences: global warming consensus thinking and the decline of public debate

I received this note about this article in an email, ~charles

If you repost this article from Climate Etc, please provide some context.
It is sad but funny, gallows humor – believers in science & open debate organize a conference about climate change. They learn that climate scientists (as a group) have weaponized their field to serve political ends – and have no interest in debate. 
Why is this a surprise? Have these people not been reading the news for the last decade?

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Posted on June 1, 2021 by curryja | 

by Geoffrey Weiss and Claude Roessiger

The so-called debate about the causes and effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a notable irony. Rather than a forum for free disputation, AGW has in recent years become the site of a consensus equating majority opinion with truth—leaving little, if any, room for debate. After all, doesn’t everyone but a misguided few agree that we are in the grip of an unparalleled, man- made climatic catastrophe?

Challenging this consensus and its advocates often leads not to reasoned argument and coolheaded policy making but to sometimes overheated recrimination and silencing of those with alternative interpretations. This we discovered firsthand when, as close observers of AGW controversies since 2015, we convened a conference about climate change and public policy.

Unanticipated events preceding the conference were an unsettling enough demonstration of the rule of consensus in contemporary life. Worse still, subsequent inquiry revealed that the AGW conference was just the tip of a bigger and—according to consensus—fast-melting iceberg. Beyond our conference and the controversies surrounding AGW, consensus thinking adversely impacts diverse other current issues, individual awareness of them, public discourse, policy making, the practice of science, and collective understanding of the nature of truth.

Conference planning and the sway of consensus

Our own diverse perspectives on AGW—those of an entrepreneur and a physician—led us to believe that the proposed conference would attract a wide range of participants. We envisioned a gathering of experts from the academy, government, industry, and other interests who would debate the impact of AGW upon public policy. Our goal was to convene a gathering of approximately 30 speakers and 500 attendees at the conference facilities of a local public university. The initial meeting of our planning board and three university faculty members was cordial and evoked considerable enthusiasm for the conference—until we presented our list of speakers. The lineup included an even balance of individuals who were either proponents or skeptics of AGW. And, with that, we collided with the first of the consensus advocates who would take issue with our approach.

“This program of speakers is unacceptable to us,” the faculty leader stated. “It has several climate change deniers. You know, of course, 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real and that it is a consequence of human activity.”

Lacking the support of university faculty, we engaged the conference facilities of a nearby hotel and proceeded with fund-raising. In August 2018—just two months before the scheduled event—AGW activists alerted members of the host city council to the controversial panel of speakers. As a result, the city leadership rescinded their endorsement and financial support of the conference.

“It was a concern about why alternative views [of climate change] would be spoken of that are not held by 99 percent of climate scientists,” claimed one councilor to a local newspaper. “[It is] reprising the whole debate about climate science.” He didn’t want the city, which had championed several environmental issues, “giving speakers like that a forum.”

Despite this setback, the conference opened as planned in October 2018. A capacity audience attended, and the discussions were generally well received, with only a small contingent of university representatives betraying their scorn. At its conclusion, the conference provided several themes around which the speakers and attendees could agree. Reviews were mixed—some finding no common ground with many of the speakers’ views, others praising the planners’ efforts.

Conference aftermath: three crucial questions

Our purpose in designing the conference was to provide an educational event and discussion forum for a regional audience of policy makers, business leaders, and professional stakeholders interested in the policy implications of AGW. Several of the speakers were skeptical of the pace of global warming or of global policy favoring the rapid development of renewable energy resources in response to AGW—but not one denied AGW.

Little did we realize how polarizing the conference would be. In particular, we were struck by the vehemence with which the local university scientists withdrew their cooperation upon learning the composition of the speaker panel. It seemed to us that they had no interest in engaging with a discussion regarding AGW and its effects—topics that, to them, closed all argument because the solutions seemed certain. The loss of our municipal sponsorship and the accompanying publicity in the local press further alerted us that forces were actively at work to undermine our project.

Our efforts to understand what led others to disengage from us and to decline our invitation to debate raised three questions: 1) Why did academic scientists avoid this opportunity to consider the AGW consensus with a few of its challengers? 2) How do scientists, the media, policy makers, and the laity acquire reliable technical information upon which to base decision making? 3) What is the difference between deniers of science and skeptics of science? We asked these questions because the cultural mood at the time of our conference seemed so emotionally charged that it prompted some to boycott discussion.

Science, faith, and consensus

In addressing why academic scientists spurned the conference, we might begin by considering how scientific truth differs from faith—in this case, faith in the AGW consensus. We sought the insights of a scholar of philosophy to guide our thesis. Generally speaking, faith leads from theory to a search for evidence, whereas scientific truth derives from empirical evidence that defines a theory. The distinction suggests philosophy’s query: What is truth? Rather than conflating truth and majority opinion, science pursues a measured truth that, at least for a time, can meet the rigorous test of the scientific method. If we seek any form of absolute truth, we shall find it only in faith—and not in empirical science. As the philosopher Karl Popper suggested in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959)a theory that cannot be falsified is faith, not science.

Consensus thinking should not be confused with consensus science. It is a historical truism that all science tends to consensus until it does not, at which point a new consensus forms around a new insight. Alfred Wegener, often considered the progenitor of continental drift theory, was derided and ostracized when he first proposed his thesis. Over time, empirical evidence disproved older notions, and today we take Wegener’s insight for the consensus belief. And tomorrow? We don’t know. New research may lead to yet another understanding. To deny that research would be to declare ourselves for a faith. It seems that a body of academics today have become brokers for a faith, shutting down—or shouting down—the continuation of scientific inquiry.

As human knowledge expands exponentially, we must admit the possibility of many corrections and new hypotheses that may lead us to new understandings. Nothing will serve us better than unbiased science guided by observation, the established scientific method. Science of this caliber not only demonstrates the transience of consensus but also, when informed by philosophy, helps elucidate the nature of truth.

Science, truth, and the role of philosophy

Since ancient times, scientific findings divergent from accepted thought have been regarded with skepticism, denial, and even contempt. Skepticism of new scientific ideas is inherent in the scientific method and ensures that fresh concepts are rigorously examined and rendered free of error before their general preferment. Denial and contempt, the scientific community agrees, have no place in experimental inquiry. Yet past and present examples are easily found.

In the early 1960s, Judah Folkman, MD—more recently a pediatric surgeon at Boston Children’s Hospital—conducted research indicating that cancers require the formation of new blood vessels to sustain their growth. This process, he suggested, had potential for developing cancer therapeutics. The ASCO Post, December 10, 2020, recalled the disbelief by granting agencies and mockery from competing researchers that Folkman faced; conventional scientific wisdom judged his ideas to be too illusory for serious attention. Then, in 1992, Napoleone Ferrara, a scientist at Genentech, Inc., identified a protein called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a potent stimulus to new blood vessel formation. Folkman’s hypothesis was acquitted. Cancer therapies targeted against VEGF were quickly synthesized and shown to be effective against certain malignancies.

Folkman’s experience suggests that consensus, in science and elsewhere, too readily excludes what the French call recul. Best understood as detachment, the term embodies the notion that, in the presence of uncertainty, a space be reserved for perspective. This allows for the possibility that different forms of truth may become entangled to advantage. In the 18th century, what we today take for a scientist was known as a philosopher. Such was Benjamin Franklin, one of the foremost scientists of his time. Those that think science is dispassionate sense while believing philosophy to be impassioned nonsense would do well to consider Franklin: Was there a man more pragmatic? When Franklin and Voltaire met in France, they were hailed as the Enlightenment’s union of empirical knowledge and wisdom. We miss this union now, believing science complete of itself. This suggests the first of four corrective truisms concerning the alliance of science and philosophy: knowledge without wisdom is a tool within an otherwise empty box.

This leads toward a second truism. Contemporary science is widely held to be the bearer of things known. This cannot be, however, because empirical science, ever subject to question, can only represent a moment in time. In science the known and the unknown are the obverse and reverse of one coin, one without the other being at best half an explanation. Thus, the second truism: in all things, there exist the known and the unknown.

A 1927 essay, “Possible Worlds,” by the English biologist J. B. S. Haldane, characterizes the universe as “not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” Science has had to face the challenge of the unknown, understanding that only by the union of philosophy and science can knowledge be advanced. In Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (2018) the German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder observes that “science has reached a limit at which it must be rescued by philosophy.”

Earlier, in writing Dieu et la science (1991), Jean Guitton, the renowned 20th-century French philosopher, concluded that he could detect no opposition between God and science but, rather, complementarity. The same might be said of philosophy and science. Although it can offer critical thinking, philosophy is not a critique of science, but an equal, complementary discipline. Philosophy advances its own claims, based on a long-tested process as rigorous as the scientific method. The representation in some circles that science offers absolute truth is thus in error and brings us to our third truism: science without philosophy is half a horse.

The ancient Greeks understood this. The word γνώση, transcribed as gnosi, encompasses what in English requires more than a word: that is, knowledge, cognition, awareness, learning, and sense. Beyond these lies what is not known. The quantum physicist tells us, with a straight face, that the laptop upon which we write our words is, and is not, the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat—in other words, the threshold beyond which the unknown lies. Here we arrive at our fourth truism: the unknown is the dark matter of all things, the greater part of our universe.

Hossenfelder is critical of theory in search of evidence: empirical evidence would do better in pursuit of theory. In her view, lacking empirical evidence of the unknown, a coterie of

physicists has taken up a game of mathematical pyrotechnics, formulating equations to support increasingly arcane hypotheses about what they cannot for now explain. Then prejudice—today called confirmation bias—intrudes, whereby such fragments as may be supposed evidence are taken for whole stone. These researchers might productively emulate philosophers, who follow procedures as defined and tempered as those of empirical science. The police of every land have a rule: a murder without a body is not a murder. In science—even, or perhaps especially, in the realm of the unknown—a theory without evidence is not a theory.

Our four truisms not only suggest a deep interconnection between science and philosophy but also help nullify the false premise that there is no truth. Based on our inquiry, we can affirm that truth exists and may be fairly assayed by diligent processes long established in both science and philosophy. It is by turning our backs on these processes that we lose ourselves.

The importance of understanding truth in contemporary public life

In our interaction with civic authorities and the media we were bewildered about how and why they had taken a position against our conference. How had they come to the judgment that our forum offered a message potentially too damaging to endorse? Drawn from legitimate academic, religious, scientific, and policy centers, our speakers were not invited to promote a single way of thinking. Who would want to attend a meeting in which everyone agreed upon a topic?

Hence, the second question that resulted from our conference: How do scientists, the media, policy makers, the laity—any of us who have a stake in learning and understanding the truth—acquire reliable information to support decision making?

Debate about the status of truth has endured since the origins of philosophical thought. Some argue that truth is entirely subjective, residing in the realm of the individual observer. Others insist that truth must be objective, that it belongs not to human beings but to the laws of nature. Most philosophers have attempted to navigate between these two poles, noting that the first leads to skepticism while the latter is simply impossible insofar as the human observer always adds an interpretative element to even the most impartial of truths. While craving a certainty that exceeds the boundaries of human thought, the human mind is in fact prisoner of its own subjectivity. We can never think beyond our own minds, perceptions, biases, and presuppositions. This suggests that the concept of truth is less stable and less independent than we might want to admit.

Even so, we are not forced to conclude that truth is only a matter of subjective understanding. To take this position implies the utter collapse of truth as a working concept: if truth is a matter of each individual’s view—which suggests that we accept contradictory truths, since there is nothing external to the individual by which we can verify the truth—then truth, logically, ceases to exist. We must avoid this skeptical position at all costs, for the erasure of truth leads not only to the impossibility of any agreement, but also to the impossibility of any disagreement. When constructively pursued, disagreement brings with it invaluable results by requiring each individual to respond to ideas and arguments he would otherwise have ignored, either intentionally or unintentionally. In short, disagreement plays the vital role of keeping dogmatism in check. Although we may not be able to entirely break free of subjectivity, it is nevertheless worthwhile to find ways to bolster our idea of truth such that it conforms to the highest possible standards of verification.

To this end, we suggest that crucial to the evaluation of any truth are three kinds of verification: empirical, experiential, and logical. Today, most people only apply one of the three at any given moment.

Some hold that empirical verification is the gold standard of any and all truths. These are the strict materialists who maintain that seeing is the only foundation for believing—loosely speaking, this is the “scientific” point of view. Among this cohort are the academicians who rebuffed our efforts to collaborate.

On the other hand, there are those who fall into the experiential camp. This group is largely comprised of people who know little to nothing of how knowledge is evaluated and shared, preferring instead to appeal to their own sense of reality. Their reasoning is largely emotional. These include the city fathers who withdrew endorsement and support of our conference, taking on faith the judgment of others.

Finally, there are the others who prioritize logic but who, without appealing to both experiential verification and empirical verification, can easily get lost in the clouds.

Each form of verification is in fact crucial to any serious inquiry. Through empirical verification, we are able to see whether the claim conforms to the body of knowledge that we already have. Experiential verification allows us to test whether the claim conforms to our own individual experience and makes sense according to our paradigm of reality. This is not mere subjectivism: we cannot discount human experience, for it is the starting point of any and all knowledge. This explains why the third kind of verification—logical verification—is necessary. Because our experiences may be partial, or even deceptive, we must abide by what is logical, even if it is not always supported by personal experience.

Each kind of verification acts as a check on the others. A robust standard of truth thus maintains that a true proposition is one that satisfies all of empirical, experiential, and logical verification. If a claim fails in one area it is a hypothesis, not a true proposition. There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis—at the heart of all inquiry, it is a working claim that is constantly being tested and revised. There is nothing false in a hypothesis but, equally and most importantly, it is not yet true.

Such a rigorous standard for judging a proposition draws a firm line between hypothesis and truth—thus restoring the latter to its rightful place. As a result, we could end up with access to fewer truths than we might otherwise have thought, but this is not a negative. The goal of inquiry is not to give all our ideas and opinions the status of truth, but to accord such status only to those ideas that have been hard won, and which have the ability to endure after we no longer have a stake in the discussion.

In our quest for truth, therefore, we must deal with the imprecision, peculiarities, and prejudices of the human mind and seek to diminish their agency. This we found as we assembled our conference and encountered opponents dedicated to a consensus that abolished inquiry about alternative interpretations. For example, one of the city councilors with whom we interacted accused certain speakers of harboring ideas that denied the impact of climate change—even though the reality was otherwise. Neither the conference planners nor the speakers regarded themselves as deniers of climate change or its threat to the quality of life, the infrastructure, the economy, and myriad other affairs. Several speakers were skeptics and challengers of the consensus; as analysts with alternative perspectives, they came armed with data that they submitted to public scrutiny. Even so, their opponents in public life and academia sought to demonize them and to annul their messages before they were uttered.

Deniers—or skeptics?

As our conference experience suggests, zealous consensus advocates tend to assign all challengers to the category of denier. If, as it seems, this proclivity is sometimes misguided, how

do we definitively distinguish between denial and skepticism? Hence, our third question: What is the difference between deniers of science and skeptics of science?

A topical example points to the answer. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an unprecedented opportunity to observe the interplay of new research findings with the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public. The rapidly evolving public health emergency created an immediate need for reliable information to guide policy and to aid medical decision making.

The entry of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as putative therapies for the corona virus infection first gained traction in a letter to the editor of Cell Research (published online, February 2020). The letter described laboratory experiments in Wuhan, China, then the epicenter of the emerging pandemic. Testing five common anti-infective and anti-inflammatory agents against SARS-CoV-2 infecting cultured monkey kidney cells, the authors demonstrated that chloroquine had promising antiviral activity. Quickly following this report was an observational study by P. Gautret et al. (International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, published online, March 20, 2020) wherein 26 patients with test-proven COVID-19 were treated with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (a common antibiotic) and compared to 16 control patients treated at another hospital without hydroxychloroquine. The authors suggested that the hydroxychloroquine-treated patients efficiently reduced viral carriage when compared to the untreated patients. This thread of evidence led to widespread application of hydroxychloroquine to the therapy of patients with COVID-19.

Rick Bright, PhD, Director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was a vocal proponent of allocating congressionally mandated funds for “safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not for drugs, vaccines, and other technologies that lack scientific merit.” (CNN Politics, April 22, 2020). When demoted to a lesser position within the HHS, he alleged that this was retaliation for his challenging the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19: “Contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the Administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit.” He left government service in October 2020. Subsequently, multiple observational studies of hydroxychloroquine use appeared in the literature, most showing lack of efficacy, several indicating a higher risk of death.

This example illustrates the importance of the distinction between “science denial” and “science skepticism.” Dr. Bright was skeptical of the utility of hydroxychloroquine based upon, at the time, the absence of scientific knowledge confirming its efficacy and safety. He denied no science; he was victimized for rejecting the politically motivated belief in hydroxychloroquine as a therapy for COVID-19.

What characterizes science denial? In 2009, Chris Hoofnagle, a Ph.D. physiologist, published a blog in the Guardian that lists the features of denialism in scientific research: 1) alleging that scientific consensus involves conspiring to falsify data or suppress the truth; 2) citing fake experts or individuals while marginalizing, demonizing, or denigrating published experts; 3) cherry-picking atypical or even obsolete papers; 4) making unreasonable demands upon research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the findings while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models; 5) comparing apples and oranges, promoting false equivalencies among competing ideas, or drawing flawed conclusions from scientifically valid research. As this list demonstrates, there is clearly an element of intended obfuscation by science denialists, who often deploy propagandistic techniques to cripple the arguments of their rivals.

The skeptic is a different creature altogether. Some speakers at our conference and others who have published their concerns in various media belong to a cohort of individuals whose skepticism of certain scientific theories and resultant policy decisions offers an important service to the community. They demand rigor in scientific analysis, provide alternative interpretations of events, and enforce a critical reexamination of the facts. We carefully vetted the credentials of our conference speakers who, to support their arguments, came with data published in peer- reviewed literature. Nevertheless, they were subjected to the same berating accorded the charlatans of science denial. In The Climate Skeptics (2004), Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research attempts to disqualify the skeptics’ influence, arguing that climate researchers end up in a compromised position whether or not they engage in debate. He then contradicts himself by calling for a public exchange of scientific ideas: “Extreme opinions of individuals or dubious arguments cannot prevail where there is broad and open discussion among specialist scientists.”

Exactly! Was that not our stated purpose in holding the conference?

Unlike science denial—which actively challenges or passively ignores accepted science, using dissuasion, disinformation, or propaganda—informed skepticism may bespeak a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence. For an expert scientific authority to assume a priori that the skeptic has nothing of value to offer seems to us an intellectually undignified position to assume. Closure of dialogue with those articulating any skepticism for AGW is explicitly unscientific.

Motivations for consensus advocacy

Why would traditional academic scientists stonewall inquiry challenging the consensus? According to Fostering Integrity in Research (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017), the answer is as banal as human nature, with the usual weaknesses at play: for example, fear of impugning the views of one’s colleagues, losing esteem in one’s discipline, or diminishing the importance of one’s research; and desire for personal gain, whether in the form of money, power, promotion, grants, sponsorship, patronage, or prestigious employment. At their most benign, such motivations may be no more than annoyances among colleagues and supervisors; at their worst, they may contribute to scientific disinformation, misconduct, or fraud.

We conjecture that our academic opponents rejected participation in the conference as a consequence of their devotion to AGW consensus. Perhaps they perceived a number of our speakers as direct threats to a career’s worth of work. Or perhaps they just preferred to vilify our lecturers rather than to engage in discussion.

We believe that the city fathers who withdrew endorsement of our meeting were simply following the persuasive power of the AGW consensus advocates. It is doubtful that they, not being experts, discerned any advantage to disputing the consensus. At worst, they can only be accused of lacking the courage to assail the controversy.

The cost of consensus: four lessons

Our experience of creating a conference of honest and balanced inquiry for the community furnished the following lessons:

First, the academics with whom we sought a collaboration clearly evinced a climate change chauvinism favoring a narrative of AGW that excludes discussion of alternative understandings. We were perhaps naïve in our belief that experts representing both AGW advocacy and skepticism could, on equal footing, share a panel.

Second, in the minds of climate change advocates, denier and skeptic are indistinguishable appellations. Under the regime of a “97 percent scientific consensus,” skepticism is given no quarter. The unwillingness of card-carrying scientists and experts to engage in the climate discussion with skeptical scientific peers and professionals was baffling to us; the vindictiveness of the AGW proponents was a shock.

Third, the fractious demeanor shown within the climate consensus group translates equally well to other belief federations. The COVID-19 pandemic has been witness to its share of scientific disinformation and bias. There are undoubtedly smaller tempests in other teapots.

Finally, empiricism having shown itself to be a surer guide than speculation, truth in science requires consideration of all observations, and these must be as readily available and unfiltered as evidence presented to a jury, whether by saints or scoundrels, whether credible or not. A poor substitute for such truth, consensus advocacy exacts its price from society and culture. Without unrestricted access to information and opinion, we are left under the control of the anointed of the day—all those who, with apparent impunity, erect barriers to the imagination and innovation that advance knowledge. Truth reposes with us individually—a collective is never accountable.

4.8 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 3, 2021 2:09 pm

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Reply to  gringojay
June 4, 2021 12:37 am

Yep! That’s why these boys in uniform were put to learning about patriotism and duty to hearth and kin, instead of browsing homoerotic poems on carbon dioxide and gender diaspora…
You know, learning respect for others, instead of learning the Bolshevik way of crapping all over other people’s culture and destroying everything others worked for, not once minding the waste.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 4, 2021 3:48 am

You may have forgotten the Holocaust, but I’m pretty sure that was all about “crapping all over other people’s culture”.
Or am I missing the sarcasm in your homophobic support of a fascist dictatorship?

June 3, 2021 2:11 pm

The very words denialists, denialism and skeptics indicate a political propaganda set up ongoing where rational debate becomes too difficult to maintain.

I see it in a few places I visit on climate issues where debate is negligible and the trolling, name calling is common,

It is why many people remain ignorant when the propaganda is all they see and read, thus their nasty behavior is common and predictable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 4, 2021 7:08 am

Even the authors fell into this trap.

They describe the characteristics of denier and skeptic as if those attributes apply only to those who question the “Consensus”.

How many of the following apply to a well known Penn State professor?
 1) alleging that scientific consensus denial involves conspiring to falsify data or suppress the truth (E.g. Exxon)
2) citing fake experts (Oreskes) or individuals while marginalizing, demonizing, or denigrating (other) published experts;
3) cherry-picking atypical or even obsolete papers (Hockey Stick);
4) making unreasonable demands upon (skeptical) research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the findings while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models (and observational data – e.g. Pielke Jr.)
5) comparing apples and oranges, promoting false equivalencies (weather vs climate)

June 3, 2021 2:13 pm

Paul Homewood posted this excellent video clip on Not A Lot Of People Know That which summarises the situation brilliantly in my view:

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  richardw
June 3, 2021 5:04 pm

An excellent short summary.

We are going to k!ll ourselves because of stupidity

I think we already are, if you count the cold season fatalities that can be attributed to increasing electricity costs, and the banning of affordable gas heating. We are certainly bankrupting ourselves.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  richardw
June 4, 2021 4:14 am

Young “scientists” desperately want careers- so they’ll obey the science Church hierarchy- where “truth” comes from the top. I just watched a video about the Cathars in France, a group who deviated slightly from the Church party line – who were exterminated by the Church. That tended to encourage consensus!

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  richardw
June 4, 2021 4:22 am

There is a fellow countryman of Allen Savory, a medical doctor who is having to contend at the rock face with the Zimbabwe covid situation. They have a shortage of funding and limited medicines. They do have a good supply of Ivermectin, a really cheap medicine, which is used in various situations.

Dr Jackie Stone and others are using it for treating covid patients and say that they are getting good results. It is stunning that those in the hallowed halls of academia are doing all they can to discredit Ivermectin. However, they are not working day and night among the ill in the poorest communities.

If I had a choice in trusting someone like Dr Stone with my medical situation or government medical advisors, I would go any day with Dr Stone. It is revealing that one of the first attempts to discredit her was by one of China’s main media organizations.

Covid and climate alarmists are birds of a feather.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 4, 2021 9:27 am

Correct Michael: “Covid and climate alarmists are birds of a feather.”

It’s ALL a leftist scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full lockdown for Covid-19, the illogical linking of these frauds (“to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot USA election scam – it’s all false and fraudulent. 

The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep. The tactics used by the global warming propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook. The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin. 

The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades. Furthermore, every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 80 or so since 1970, has failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date. 

There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “You will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!” – it is the CCP model.

Expanding on the global warming alarmists’abysmal predictive track record:

The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.

Climate doomsters have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction, of the ~80 they have made since 1970, has FAILED TO HAPPEN.

“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”

To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 “idiot odds” for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.

These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.

There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction – nobody should believe them.

The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.

The wolves, proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam, know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change” – utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments:
The sheep are well-described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the landmark text “The Black Swan”, as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” or IYI – IYI’s hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent sufficient effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their negative worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.

A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file

June 3, 2021 2:19 pm

The lessons of history is when science tries to impose a consensus answer it ends with science getting an abrupt reality check and getting it’s head kicked in.

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Ron Long
June 3, 2021 2:22 pm

Since I have not only never convinced a liberal that climate change is natural and in chaotic cycles, but also I have never convinced them to research the issue, I wonder if the problem is deeper seated? Try these reports, or other similar ones, mostly involving functional MRI brain studies: 1. Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults, and 2. Intrinsic functional connectivity of blue and red brains. The issue actually isn’t funny, since billions of dollars are being wasted chasing unicorn farts.

alastair gray
Reply to  Ron Long
June 3, 2021 3:43 pm

I am almost completely ostracised by my family – wife, children and siblings- for my skeptical position and have not convinced a single one to consider the evidence. We are all highly educated. The closed minds depress me. They suck up all the crap so unquestioningly

Reply to  Ron Long
June 3, 2021 4:04 pm

It is also concerning that the authors seem to believe Dr Bright’s (what a name for a self proclaimed ‘smarter than his boss’ guy) version of his employment troubles. Also concerning, the lack of curiosity about the probity of many of the ‘studies’ that allegedly debunked the use of HCQ. I’m unsure where HCQ is currently rated as a COVID19 prophylactic or treatment vis a vis Ivermectin but Bright’s explanation for limiting the use of HCQ is anti-factual. He wanted to promote only proven solutions at a time when there were none, his objection to HCQ that it lacked scientific merit (so no point in using a safe well known drug with in vitro effects in a widespread attempt at prevention and early treatment). Meantime Remdesivr is considered worth using?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John_C
June 3, 2021 8:25 pm

Fauci used hydroxychloriquine on SARS-Cov-1 patients in 2003, and the Chicoms used it in Wuhan not long after the virus started infecting people.

A lot of doctors swear by HCQ. The way to use it, or any treatment for the Wuhan virus, is to treat it as soon as possible after infection. This way the virus is kept from building up into large numbers.

Ivermectin seems to be making a big difference in the infection rates in certain States in India that have authorized it use for their citizens. A couple of Indian States outlawed the use of Ivermectin, and their infection rates are climbing higher and higher.

I saw an interesting article about why so many Wuhan virus survivors are experiencing shortness of breath long after the Wuhan infection has cleared their bodies.

It seems that the Wuhan virus infects immature red blood cells. They have the ACE2 receptor. Doctors found that some Wuhan virus patients had up to 60 percent of the red blood cells circulating in thier bodies were made up of immature red blood cells. Immature red bloods cells don’t carry oxygen. Normally, a human would have very little if any immature red blood cells circulating in their bloodstream.

So the Wuhan virus is apparently attacking the areas where red blood cells are manufactured and this is causing excess immature red blood cells to flood the bloodstream, and this also assists the infection rate as the Wuhan virus infects the immatue red blood cells circulating in the blood.

There must be some mechanism that causes this effect to persist after the Wuhan virus infection is gone because people are feeling short of breath long after they got over the virus. Dexamethdone (not sure that’s spelled correctly) supposedly can treat this immature red blood cell problem.

The Wuhan virus is a nasty virus. It has long-term effects that have not been characterized competely yet. I don’t think it is a good idea to let anyone of any age get infected with this virus and not treat them with something that will cut the infection short.

People of all ages and all degrees of infection are showing up with long-term adverse health effects from this virus. So the best course of action if infected is to try to eliminate it from your body as soon as possible with some kind of treatment. Sitting at home without treatment after infection is the current standard of care but it is wrong. Treating early is the ticket.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  John_C
June 3, 2021 9:02 pm

Ditto that. How many died because of “consensus science”? The evidence FOR the use of HCQ was abundant. The HCQ DENIERS used fallacious arguments, such as “untested for safety” and “no double blind studies”. The scientists and medical doctors who were culture cancelled were not the DENIERS.

Then came ivermectin and steroid inhalers. Again the political DENIERS silenced any discussion of these lifesaving treatments.

The original Holocaust DENIERS were the “good” Germans who looked away in silence as their neighbors were carted off to death camps.

It seems that today the use of the term “DENIER” has been flip-flopped onto the people who seek the truth by the people who are the actual truth/science/reality DENIERS, and whose motivations are the same deadly political authoritarian bullying that gave rise to the term.

Reply to  John_C
June 3, 2021 9:41 pm

That particular example chosen (hcq) is horrible. From Dr bright right through to the fda, they are responsible for thousands of deaths. I do not understand Dr Currys choice.

Reply to  JBP
June 4, 2021 7:13 am

Dr Curry did not write the article.
by Geoffrey Weiss and Claude Roessiger”

Roger Knights
Reply to  John_C
June 4, 2021 3:56 am

The article mentioned the recent consensus that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work and may be harmful. That may be changing. In the past week two pro-HCQ papers have appeared:

Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic (May 31, 2021) – study suggests HCQ studies failed to account for body weight in dosing, and at high enough doses they saw benefit and not too much Qt interval elongation

There’s also been a paper from Iran on the positive results of treating over 30,000 patients with HCQ vs. placebo, but I have lost the link.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 4, 2021 5:02 am

I’m wondering what happened to the big study of HCQ in Taiwan? They supposedly were going to do clinical trials on HCQ’s effectiveness against the Wuhan virus and also test if HCQ could be used as a preventative.

That was many months ago but I haven’t heard of any results yet.

Robert of Texas
June 3, 2021 2:31 pm

What exactly are we denying?

o We do not deny climate changes.
o We do not deny that the world has warmed since the “Little Ice Age”.
o We do not deny that CO2 as studied in a laboratory test tube can absorb and re-emit certain bands of infrared light.

All we are doing is challenging the certainty and magnitude of change as predicted by a bunch of flawed computer models. We are skeptical of people attributing CO2 induced climate change to weather extremes.

Untampered data support the skepticism.

Brent Qually
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 3, 2021 3:57 pm

“Denier” is used to besmirch, and equate AGW skepticism with Holocaust denial.

Reply to  Brent Qually
June 3, 2021 11:15 pm

equate AGW skepticism with Holocaust denial.

Which many who use the term deny

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 4, 2021 4:22 am

and we are challenging the idea that we MUST spend countless trillions to drastically change our civilization’s source of energy- while forcing socialism on all of us- so it’s not just a discussion about science- this is about a political revolution far exceeding that of the French and Russians- so everyone who thinks they can a piece of the $$$$ action are never going to lose their “faith” in this new religion- the proponents of this new religion have created a fantasy of a fabulous wealth for all who go along- just brilliant!

June 3, 2021 2:34 pm

I believe in the Bible. Including that God made all of the animals we see; I do not believe they all emerged from natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

I used to believe in Evolution. Having been on both sides of the issue, I can hash arguments and evidence out to their essence pretty well.

But what I believe is neither here nor their.

I will say this, though. Among those who believe in evolution, there is a line of doubt. Darwin had doubts. Stephen Gould had doubts. Etc. I would say both count as ardent believers in Evolution.

Beyond this, the skeptics of Evolution, admittedly mostly driven by Christian Ideology, have examined Evolution, and have pointed out many weaknesses in Evolution.

this has served the function of debate. Evolutionists have had to acknowledge and respond to the more worthy critiques of Evolution.

I regularly listen to lectures on the you tubes from both sides. It is apparent that the critique from skeptics of Evolution, throwing decent, founded criticisms, have prompted responsive thinking from the Evolutionists.

If Evolution accounts for the great variety of the life forms that we see, the Evolutionists may be pestered and annoyed, but should be able to respond to criticisms. And, rather than having all Evolutionists sit around in general agreement, they will be advancing Evolutionary Theory to address any founded criticisms.

In the end, I am not forcing people to believe what I believe under threat of banishment, censure, political attack, or social isolation. Sure, tyrants have used the excuse of Christianity to do this, at times in history. But that is not what we believe and do.

Evolutionists, as well, are not trying to censure me or banish me, or take points away from my social credits.

The Political Operatives leaning upon “Science” as their excuse to be tyrannical are, however. They will use any strategy that occurs to them.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 3:09 pm

Respect your view and your tolerance of debate, the topic here. But I would also suggest you examine more closely two lines of observational evidence.

  1. The fossil record, especially clad diagrams of ‘evolution’ and their underlying fossil and genetic (today species) sources.
  2. My long example in my 2012 ebook The Arts of Truth concerning intelligent design. The problem with that ‘theory’ supposedly proving an ‘intelligent designer’ (usually using the eye as an example) is that the eye actually evolved three times, in three different ways: insect and crustacian compound eyes starting with, for example, now long extinct trilobites; all vertebrate animals with photoreceptors behind the retinal membrane (hence humans susceptible to macular degeneration); and cephalopods with receptors in front of the retinal membrane. There was an evolutionary reason for this third way, as cephalopods need very sensitive vision to hunt prey in dark ocean depths. If there were an intelligent designer, he/she/it favored squid.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 3:36 pm

If eyes were the only standard …
What’s so great about living at dark ocean depths?

Engineers know a good design can’t optimize all parameters.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 3, 2021 5:36 pm

engineers can design things to be as good as possible
Life seems to have been designed to be as bad as possible, consistent with living just long enough to produce progeny. For a while. Then becoming extinct.
If that is intelligent design, I don’t think much of it frankly

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 3, 2021 9:57 pm

You’d be saying the same thing if humans lived a 1000 years. “Why not 2000? Bad designer”.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 3, 2021 11:20 pm

I could be wrong but aren’t reproduction rates generally related to longevity

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 4:42 pm

Starfish and scallops have light sensors. Slugs and snails are not blind.

Infrared sensors in reptiles are yet another form of vision receptor.

When there is a need, evolution eventually hits an answer though it may run through many trillions of dead end possibilities.

Life forms without the need may lose their sight over many generations as having vision does not provide any survival benefit.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  ATheoK
June 3, 2021 5:49 pm

Yup. All in the example in the book, skipped here for brevity sake. And some creatures evolutionarily have lost vision. Example cave creatures.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 1:04 am

Yeah, yeah… Fossil clades with huge gaps, ‘missing links’ that link with no intermediate forms, and fully evolved forms with no progenitors.
Evolution is as much religion as what “creation” is science. Adaptation? Sure. Niche settlement? Sure. Fossils as proof? About as scientifically valid as Genesis, which, while infantilised and mythified (sic?), does imply a lot more than just “God made it”.
For the time being, I shall use Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of sympathetic morphology, it negates the inconsistencies of the evolutionists, while demystifying the claims of creationists. “Made in my image” suddenly becomes a logically consistent and viable hypothesis.
If there was any honest self-criticism left amongst tenured academics, Sheldrake would have been more famous than Einstein and Darwin together.

Ron Long
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 3:17 pm

Have you ever read “The voyage of the Beagle”?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Ron Long
June 3, 2021 3:34 pm


Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Ron Long
June 3, 2021 4:38 pm

Haven’t read that but I read “On the Origin of Species”. Darwin published it a few years before Mendel published his work on peas, so Darwin talked about the evolution of species with the help of natural selection but he never hazarded a guess as to how the species actually changed.

Ron Long
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
June 3, 2021 5:50 pm

The value in reading the Voyage of the Beagle is that Darwin writes what he is thinking, and sometimes he is conflicted, but works his way through the evidence in a clearly scientific manner.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
June 3, 2021 6:02 pm

There is a fun science thing here. Darwin’s Origins speculation was extremely well founded observationslly, but misunderstood how his speculative (then) genes worked. Mendel later proved Darwin wrong in the details, not the big picture. So Darwin was right in general, but wrong on detailed specific mechanisms later ‘gene proven’ by Mendel.

But, Mendel was himself also lucky, but ultimately wrong. The pea traits he selected for are primary. That is, not affected by epigenetics. In a longish post over at Judiths some years ago (main theme how Holocene rising CO2 enabled the transition from hunter gatherer to sedentary agriculture, all over the world in different agricultures ‘simultaneously’, used the non-Mendelian new epigenetic example of dried beans.
Science marches on.

I will post this, then go get my CE hyperlink reference.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 6:27 pm

Ok. The CE citation on my climate change/epigenetic speculation is: —or some such since my post is findable via her search function.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 5:15 pm

If there is an Intelligent Designer, how do you explain that we, as pinnacles of that Design, have massive back problems from walking upright when we are ‘designed’ to walk on all fours and climb trees.

I also want to have words with them about teeth!

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 3, 2021 6:37 pm

My osteopathic surgeon told me after my 3rd procedure that the first-world human skeleton has evolved to be serviceable for about 65 years now.

After that, we’re in maintenance / repair status, and all bets are off.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 7:16 pm

So….. Last Democrat, et al., you’ve never heard of genetic mutations as a root source of “evolution”? Without genetic mutations into so-called “modern” humans, we might not exist at all and I would certainly not be typing up this much comment stuff.

So then, please explain why horseshoe crabs and spiders are related to each other, and why some spider species have adapted nicely to building homes under the surface of water bodies.

Also, please explain why some species simply died out long before Humans ever appeared, especially since we are frequently accused of being the sole source of extinctions of every other living thing on the planet.

You do know that the Moa bird is extinct, right? But the emus, and ostrickes and cassowaries are primitive birds that have some genetic relationship to their extinct cousins.

And last, but certainly not least, why does ONE person get quite sick from a bug such as a vicious killer like typhoid, but someone else like Typhoid Mary (who never washed her hands when she was prepping food for her employer), never even broke a sweat.

Evolution is simply a series of genetic mutations and not some experiment from and Invisible Host or Hostess. Critters and plants have been EVOLVING on this planet since before the breakup of Pangea. Some survived, others didn’t. If they didn’t survive, they can’t pass on their DNA.

If it’s universally accepted now that solar systems form out of massive clouds of dust, and over some billions of years form planets and asteroids and moons, etc., etc., etc., then how is that any different from the description of a solar system forming as “without form and substance”? If you bother to look as NASA photos from the various space telescopes, then you will likely see star nurseries (gas clouds, without form and substance) ejecting newborn STARS which are trailing gases behind them as if that was an umbilical cord. So HOW is this proof in science different from the Genesis description of how a solar system forms?

Wanna tell me?

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 7:43 pm

“I believe in the Bible. Including that God made all of the animals we see; I do not believe they all emerged from natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.”

Animals we see, are small portion of life on Earth.
All plants and animals are interconnected and associated with microbial life- and the earliest life on Earth was microbial.
And it can be said that microbial life is foundational- or supports animals and plants.

A general idea is that God is the creator of everything {which would include all microbial life}.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 4, 2021 4:27 am

“Stephen Gould had doubts.” I’ve read most of his work. What doubts did he have? I didn’t see any- though he did once say in one of his later books that it’s extraordinary that life got beyond the unicellular level. He seemed to think getting to that level was the really big deal- getting beyond it really amazed him but I don’t think believed it had divine inspiration.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 4, 2021 6:13 am

I don’t deny that evolution is a natural process and that it is how we got here, but there are many things I am unable to explain (to my own satisfaction) on a strictly evolutionary basis. What I always come back to is that it is impossible to comprehend what evolution might be able to accomplish in the fullness of geologic time.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 4, 2021 11:57 am

There was a time we didn’t understand ligntning. Various cultures had “gods” to explain it. Now we understand it. We learn.

“We don’t know” is a valid answer. “Don’t know” doesn’t equate to a creator – that the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

IMO It’s all ok as long as it’s honestly discussed.

Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 2:47 pm

Read this over at Judith’s a few days ago. The reactions to the conference by the uni and pol types are utterly unsurprising to me.

Warmunists (term derived from Vaclav Klaus 2007 book Blue Planet in Green Shackles) don’t want open conferences as described here. They don’t want debate. They don’t want Koonin. They need to enforce their faux 97% consensus ‘proving’ the 3% skeptics are just “flat earthers”, to quote Obama.

Their reasons are simple:

  1. If there were debate, they would lose badly. Every prediction they have previously made has been proven wrong in time. They confuse model outputs with observational data. Their models are multiply wrong: there is no tropical troposphere hot spot, se level rise is not accelerating, observational ECS is half of modeled. They have been exposed in much scientific dishonesty, starting with Mann’s hockey stick two decades ago. Explicit academic misconduct was also exposed at least 4 times in essays By Land or Sea, Shell Games, and Burning Nonscience in ebook Blowing Smoke.
  2. If they lost the debate badly, their funding sources would dry up. So they have every financial incentive to avoid debate.

Now, I think this unfortunate but real situation can also be viewed with sanguine ‘optimism’. The ad hominem SciAm Koonin critique is truly a tactical bridge too far; the book is a best seller and Koonin is a famous physicist. More importantly, their vaunted ‘decarbonization’ cannot work; they more they try, the more exposed they become. Not enough lithium and cobalt for EVs. Any significant renewable penetration means intermittancy has to be covered by backup generation, or by blackouts—as February’s Texas ErCOT grid reminds. No one invests in renewables without true subsidies because they are uneconomic, and twenty years of ‘jump start only’ subsidizes has NOT changed that fundamental economic reality.

Just a decade ago, such real world issues could be ignored by the AGW gang. EVs were a small novelty, and renewable grid penetration was low. But continuing to push the GND NOW means soon confronting harsh reality head on. California and the UK have volunteered as crash test dummies. The illusory consensus ends and real debate begins after the crash test dummies do not survive the crashes they themselves have engineered.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 3:32 pm

I forgot to mention in post below about advocates being so expert in so many fields and certain about policy, that according to the Scientific American article one of Oreskes recent articles is “Making Vaccines Is Straightforward; Getting People to Take Them Isn’t.” As a historian, she doesn’t seem to know the history of vaccines. Hope she never taught pre-meds, but most are smarter.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
June 3, 2021 3:53 pm

And this –

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 3:38 pm

You are confusing two completely seperate issues. Whether or not renewable energy sources and EVs are economically viable is completely seperate from the science of climate change and whether or not it is caused by human activity.

Sooner or later the world is going to have to work out how to run a global economy using
renewable energy sources. The reason is not AGW but simply that fossil fuels are a finite resource and will run out at some point. There is perhaps at most 100 years left of oil, about 200 years left of coal and even less if you make the optimistic assumption that the developing world will continue to become richer and use more energy. Even conventional Uranium reserves are finite and are not sufficient to power the world for very long.

Have a look at “sustainability without the hot air”
where David MacKay argues that over the next 1000 years the only viable energy source is
solar power and/or uranium breeder reactors using uranium extracted from seawater. Of which only the first we know how to do while nobody knows if the second can be done at all.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 3, 2021 3:58 pm

Isaac, disagree. BTW, read McKay years ago and have him archived on my climate files. but his hundreds of years isnt 2030 or 2040, when GND mandates are supposed to bite.
IF ‘climate change’ is real, then the debate is mitigation versus adaptation (I am channeling Lomberg). IF mitigation isn’t possible, the adaptation is the only viable response and we can all go home and relax.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 3, 2021 4:31 pm

Peak oil 😉

You have no idea how much fossil fuels are left and neither do “experts.”

So why should we believe you when you believe in Trump Russia colluuuusion?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Derg
June 3, 2021 5:55 pm

we dont need to know how much fossil fuel is left, we simply need to look at the falling EROEI. When it falls to about 5 fossil fuels wont be worth extracting, because a MWh of fossil fuel will cost way more than a MWh of nuclear power by a margin large enough to make synthesising fuel more attractive than mining it, or whatever oil extraction is called.
So lomg as the market rules anyway

Peak horse didnt happen because we ran out of horses 😉

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 3, 2021 6:41 pm

Carbon taxes 😉

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Derg
June 3, 2021 6:45 pm

Well, we actually do, via several various methods, all previously explained in my ebooks. Your problem is, all these different methods roughly agree.
I do not believe in Russian collusion, but do think peak oil is real despite fracking gave my observational thinking in all three ebooks. Have never in any predicted anything other than a slow gradual decline starting mid 2020’s. IF the actual liquid oil peak is about 2025 as predicted, then by 2040 the liquid fuels decline starts to really pinch. Read my years of research stuff before responding, please.

Reply to  Derg
June 4, 2021 11:58 am

Aren’t we quite a bit past the original “peak oil” prediction?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 3, 2021 4:47 pm

My reply to you got glitched by dinner. Short repost. i read MacKay, and have it archived in my climate files.
But, his centennial time frames are incongruent with ‘mitigation’ GND time frames. Period. That is not a disconnect easy to reconcile.
As argued (in part inspired by him) in essay Going Nuclear in ebook Blowing Smoke, fracked Natgas gives us at least 40 years (CCGT min lifetime) to explore plausible 4Gen nuclear, since we already know 3gen (e.g.Voglte 3 and 4) isn’t economically viable. Pick the best couple of G4 concepts, build prototype scale reactors, shake out their engineering bugs, then make a G4 decision decades down the road. Lowest cost and least risk.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 6:00 pm

3 gen would be viable if te political climate were different

This is an attempt o modulate public perception and alter the poltiical climate

Leo Smith
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 3, 2021 5:50 pm

we know prefectly well how to build breeder reactirs. We have built several. They worked. But they were more expensive than bog standard fission reactors.
I knew Dr Mackay. I got his book published by an ex colleague of mine.. When he was scientific advisor to the uk govt, I met him at his publishers party. His publisher is very Green and pro Renewables. the party was full of Believers IN Climate Change and Renewable energy.
“So David” I said “where is all this energy to run electric cars and a carbon free world going to come from then?”
He looked around to see whether anyone was listening, and then murmured quietly “Nuclear power”
As with my website, we both published facts. Its amazing that people still think he advocated renewable energy or that gridwatch shows renewable energy is working, when the facts – the real facts – show the opposite.

If we dont move to nuclear power, we wont be able to sustain civilisation at the current populationn levels, indeed it is doubftul if we will be able to sustain an industrial civilasation at all.

renewable energy is not sustainable

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 3, 2021 10:15 pm


The fact Fascists opted for expensive, intermittent and unreliable wind/solar to replace fossil fuels proves CAGW is a complete hoax.

if CAGW was a real “existential threat”, Fascists would have replaced fossil fuels with next generation MSR nuclear reactors, or at least conventional nuclear power, but alas…

CAGW is the biggest and most expensive scam in human history…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 4, 2021 4:46 am

“Sooner or later the world is going to have to work out how to run a global economy using renewable energy sources.”

Later is better than sooner if sooner means spending hundreds of trillions of dollars while covering millions of acres with solar and wind farms- ruining the landscape in the process- losing ecosystem services on that land- and while pushing socialist causes.

another ian
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 6:34 pm


In my experience an overlooked first from Sci Am

Find yourself a copy of Gale, N.H. and Stos-Gale, Z. (1981) “Lead and silver in the ancient Aegean”. Sci Am. June 1981 Vol 244 (6) pp 142 – 152.

It reads as a reasonable scientific article.

Its first is the best photo of a cleavage I’ve ever seen in such an article (P 143)

Those articles back then on ancient weapons of war were also interesting reading

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 4:37 am

“California and the UK have volunteered as crash test dummies.” Don’t forget Massachusetts which now has a net zero law and is busy chopping down forests to install solar farms. It’s MA that sued the EPA to force it to declare carbon emissions a pollutant.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2021 12:09 pm

“chopping down forests to install solar farms”

I have been categorically told by “renewable” apologists that this does not happen, ever. Despite the fact that I’ve witnessed it personally.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 4:43 am

“Not enough lithium and cobalt for EVs.” Ironically, the enviros are trying hard to stop lithium production in America. The following AP article was in my local paper.
Agency: Flower near mine needs protection
Associated Press
RENO, Nev. — An extremely rare wildflower that grows only in Nevada’s high desert where an Australian mining company wants to dig for lithium should be protected under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Thursday.
The agency outlined its intention to propose listing Tiehm’s buckwheat as a threatened or endangered species as part of its review of a listing petition conservationists filed in 2019. A federal judge said last month the finding was six months overdue and ordered the agency to render a decision by May 31.
The conclusion that federal protection is warranted could jeopardize Ioneer Ltd.’s plans to build the mine halfway between Reno and Las Vegas.
It also ups the ante in an early test of the Biden administration’s ability to make good on promises to protect public lands and their native species while at the same time pursuing an ambitious clean energy agenda that includes bolstering production of lithium needed for electric car batteries.
Environmentalists say the delicate, 6-inch tall wildflower with yellow blooms is on the brink of extinction with fewer than 30,000 individual plants remaining.
Ioneer acknowledges Tiehm’s buckwheat hasn’t been documented anywhere else in the world but insists it can co-exist with the mine.
Nevertheless, the looming listing presents the biggest regulatory hurdle to date for what would be only the second large-scale lithium mine operating in the United States.
The Center for Biological Diversity first petitioned for federal listing in October 2019 and weeks later filed suit against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to block construction of the mine at Rhyolite Ridge west of Tonopah in the Silver Peak Range about 20 miles east of the California line and 200 miles southeast of Reno — where Tesla Motors’ largest lithium battery factory is located.
“Tiehm’s buckwheat s h o u l d n’t be wiped off the face of the earth by an open-pit mine,” Patrick Donnelly, the center’s Nevada director, said Thursday. “The service stepping in to save the plant from extinction is the right call.”
Ioneer Managing Director Bernard Rowe said Thursday they expected the warranted finding and share the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “commitment to protect and preserve Tiehm’s buckwheat in its habitat.”
“This process will provide greater certainty around our schedule and diminishes the prospect of future
litigation,” he said. “We remain confident that the science strongly supports the coexistence of our vital lithium operation and Tiehm’s buckwheat.”
The tiny population of Tiehm’s buckwheat is found on 21 acres spread across 3 square miles at the mine site.
Scientists say the plant plays an integral role in the desert ecosystem by stabilizing soils, dispersing seeds and creating a sort of oasis that provides rare food and moisture for bees and other pollinators.

June 3, 2021 3:03 pm

I’m concerned about the current trend toward either limiting or even censoring debate in both scientific, social and cultural venues. If a person seeks truth, then debate is not something to be feared, but something to be embraced. Teach the children you know that debate in support of robust science is healthy and should be encouraged at all times.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ghandi
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Ghandi
June 3, 2021 3:20 pm

I like your line of thinking. There is a present apt analogy. The Dems say the 2020 ‘stolen election’ is just a baseless conspiracy theory. If that were so, they would welcome the AZ Maricopa and GA Fulton county audits to prove it baseless, instead of fighting tooth and nail to prevent them. Guilty much?

Same with climate alarmists fighting to stop climate debate. Guilty much?

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 5:19 pm

Today, it seems the Democrats at all levels of government, local to national, are united in their opposition to the Maricopa County recount.


Back in 2000 they whole heartedly supported the Palm Beach County official recount, and the subsequent unofficial recount performed by the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN, and AP.
What a difference a day 20 years makes.
Apologies to Dinah Washington

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 9:59 pm

Even Maricopa county republicans think the supposed audit is a sham.

Similarly in Georgia there were several hand recounts and audits and every
one returned the same result. Hiring manifestly unqualified people who have previously stated a belief that there was fraud and that Donald Trump won is not an impartial attempt at a proper audit. In addition the whole thing is a farce with the “cyber ninjas” looking for traces of bamboo and secret watermarks that Maricopa county officials have stated are not present. Have a look at

Nothing in that report makes it sound like what is happening could be even remotely considered an audit.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 4, 2021 7:35 am

We will probably never know if there was fraud in Fulton County because we enjoy a secret ballot. You can count fraudulent votes over and over and not determine if that ballot came from one of the deceased still on GA voter rolls.

It IS clear that the Emergency provisions Stacy Abrams illegally negotiated (bypassing the legislature) and the millions Zuckerberg gave Fulton County for 24/7 unsupervised drop boxes (ballot harvesting is illegal in GA, BTW) as well as for election staff (with transportation) to “advise” voters in select Atlanta districts facilitated anyone with an inclination to cheat.

BTW, Zuckerberg’s CTCL group also paid salaries and helped hire poll workers. What were their special qualifications?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 4, 2021 8:36 am

And such solid reporting from the AP, you know, as solid as their reporting on Russian collusion, or that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc.

The problem with leftists is they have so any ways to confirm their biases. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, etc. All straight form the streets of NYC.

These “news” sources repeatedly reported on the “NEXT” big Russia, Russia, Russia development (lie) for 3 years, always quoting multiple unnamed former or current government officials, and always proven wrong, just to present a new development a week later, again with another report with the same claim. You know they were always the SAME sources giving false information, and even to this day, those lying sources have not been identified.

But you are here at WUWT and can see, daily, that your biases are just that, biases.

I don’t think you are truly stupid Willfully ignorant, yes. But your subconscious MUST know how wrong you are when you write what you have above, and you must be internally conflicted.

Some day, hopefully before you pass, the light will shine and you will separate from your religious belief system and understand TRUTH. The sooner the better, but I am not holding my breath.

H. D. Hoese
June 3, 2021 3:08 pm

Not every science field is so far into advocacy trying to make policy, but here are a few published statements about “excess nutrients” from marine biologists.
“Fortunately, …decrease(s)(of) excess nutrient loads proceeded without complete scientific consensus …; “I have been preaching for years….” “The science behind the policy was reviewed in depth and confirmed by an independent expert panel convened by the EPA. ”

There are many other “appeals to authority” including predictions of a completely tropical Gulf of Mexico by the end of the century from biologists either experts in physics or failures to do adequate homework. And this about oysters–they [harvested reefs] were not “natural” therefore……”we seek to end the debate.”

There is nothing wrong with scientists critiquing policy, except when they are the ones advocating and actively trying to make it. Some might be right, but wrong is impossible like young undisciplined children. Be careful what you wish for and choose to believe. It’s called being thoughtful without losing curiosity.

June 3, 2021 3:18 pm

Physicists have built 2 4-km tubes for measuring distant gravity waves, but no such experiment is done for CO2 warming. Tells you everything you need to know. Horseshoe bats naturally start virus outbreaks at the same Wuhan wet market 7 times this century. It’s amazing how they skip all the wet markets closer than 900 km from their home. Just amazing.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 3, 2021 3:40 pm

You do not need long interferometers to deduce ‘GHG’s, only gravity waves.
Tyndall did the GHG experimental stuff in 1859, as he described in two subsequent papers.

Corona viruses a separate discussion. SARS via civets in wet markets. mers via camels. COVID likely via Wuhan Institute of Virology GoF experiment leaks.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 5:21 pm

Tyndall did the GHG experimental stuff in 1859

But has anyone tried to prove its effect on the temperature of our atmosphere? That’s a whole different story. Given the billions, or probably trillions of dollars spent trying to mitigate hypothetical CAGW, it’s criminal not to spend a tiny fraction of that proving CAGW.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 6:45 pm

Tyndall did not measure the source of his radiation increasing in temperature due to presence of CO2.

IR absorption alone is not the GHE.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 3, 2021 7:10 pm

True. Arrenius later tried, and failed. Twice. As you surely know, the first ‘approximately correct’ estimate was Callendar 1938—and his estimate turned out to be ECS 1.67.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 9:06 pm

Cite Callendar’s experiment.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 3, 2021 7:38 pm

Yes, the relation between energy (e.g. radiative) effects, heat production and transport, and system and process efficacy outside of a closed environment is poorly understood, and, in fact, unwieldy, thus the struggle to shoehorn a simple scalar, and missing links infilled with brown matter to forcibly sustain a consensus of models (i.e. hypotheses) with reality.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 3, 2021 8:43 pm

“Physicists have built 2 4-km tubes for measuring distant gravity waves”

I hear NASA is going to be putting some large interferometers in space in the not-too-distant future.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 3, 2021 10:01 pm

Cool. Maybe they can find gravity farts in the 5th dimension of our neighboring multiverse universe neighbor. But notice they don’t perform any steel greenhouse or co2 experiments in space …

John Hultquist
June 3, 2021 3:20 pm

“skeptics of science “

Well, there are those.
What is missed is that scientists are skeptics (or skeptical).

I got a chuckle over this:
” as close observers of AGW controversies since 2015,”

They wanted a conference in 2018! Had they been close observers since, say 2008 (the year I started reading on WUWT), they would have said “Why bother.” or “Let’s go fishing.”
Their encounter with the Climate Cult was predictable.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 3, 2021 4:04 pm

John, true. But to their credit they learned your lesson the hard way, and posted it at Judiths. They are now fully ‘red pilled’ (a Matrix metaphor).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 3, 2021 8:47 pm

““skeptics of science “

We are not skeptical of science, we are skeptical of some scientific claims.

A scientific claim is not science until it is proven.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 3, 2021 10:02 pm

Some people are skeptical of science, but unrelated is that – scientists are skeptical.
And, I am not sure what your 2nd sentence implies, and so will not try to respond to it.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2021 4:54 am

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as Carl Sagan once said

B Clarke
June 3, 2021 4:38 pm

This program of speakers is unacceptable to us,” the faculty leader stated. “It has several climate change deniers. You know, of course, 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real and that it is a consequence of human activity.”

The faculty leader is a idiot,bought and paid for, refering to people as climate deniers is a well publicised derogatory term associated with death camp deniers , I have yet to hear,meet or read anyone in the skeptics camp who denies climate. Even a climate skeptic is bordering on a derogatory label, climate realist is by far a more sensible term.

Well I don’t know of any 97% of scientists agree that global warming is real. I’ve seen the consensus, I’ve also seen it taken apart , its a loaded questionnaire to achieve a consensus that did not stand up to scrutiny.

Not only is the faculty a idiot he/she is a coward and should not be the leader of anything.

The faculty leader is reading from a script, the same script repeated word for word by msm politicians, institutions, Pip has writen on here a few articles that shows were the scripts are coming from.

I know what I’m going to say next is a repeat but it needs repeating often.

The above is organised, it demonstrates a consensus that denies free speech ,a different opinion, this organisation rides on the back of CC ,at the same time it is implementing draconian measures, rules ,laws, that i believe will see untold suffering to the worlds population like never before, “the science is settled ” is code for we will do what we want without a mandate from the people , the debate is stiffled to misinform the public ,there will be no education to inform of a opposing view. We have already seen what happens to academics who dare to question the consensus.

The faculty leader is a sheep, blind being lead, fear of losing whatever he/she holds most dear.
When I talk to people and ask,inform on the basics of climate change ,they have no idea of the raging battle behind closed doors ,when you point them in the direction of informing themselves they don’t,like the faculty leader they prefer to be lead, its a form of the real denialist machine, because there is no communication, comradeship we once had, obsessive fear of losing one’s job ,income,.makes us solitary creatures frightened of not providing,,succeeding.

I believe we are being steered ultimately by psychopaths who aim is to not only control every aspect of our lives but reduce the herd considerably

Leo Smith
Reply to  B Clarke
June 3, 2021 6:03 pm

I wouldn’t mind if they knew what they were doing, but if they knew what they were doing we wouldn’t know what they were doing!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  B Clarke
June 4, 2021 5:00 am

“the debate is stiffled to misinform the public”
Funny, but here in Massachusetts, most people have the AGW faith- until somebody wants to install a solar “farm” next to THEIR home.

Chris Hanley
June 3, 2021 4:40 pm

Hossenfelder is critical of theory in search of evidence: empirical evidence would do better in pursuit of theory …

As a lay observer the latter based on the Sir Francis Bacon’s inductive method of reasoning is a noble pursuit however, disregarding the corrupted surface temperature records, even the supposedly more reliable satellite data since 1979 show different linear trends RSS being about one third faster warming rate of the other UAH, both cannot be correct.
As Roy Spencer has noted both are well below the average rate of the corresponding models.
The IPCC the supposed definitive authority on human caused climate change is no help, the latest report (2014) summary based on ‘expert judgement’ states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report”.
That ‘expert judgement’ is little advanced on the ‘expert judgement’ in the first report (1990): “We calculate with confidence that: …CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect”.
In time as the developing world continues to employ fossil fuel energy the climate will recede from the public mind in the West in favour of more material concerns.

Peter K
June 3, 2021 5:18 pm

Belief – Evidence = Religion.

Reply to  Peter K
June 3, 2021 7:32 pm

Religion is a behavioral protocol, including: morality, its relativistic sibling ethics, and its politically congruent cousin law.

Belief – Evidence = faith (i.e. trust), a logical domain. Also, philosophy (i.e. possible). And fantasy (i.e. improbable).

Science is, with cause, a near domain philosophy and practice.

June 3, 2021 7:33 pm

Fascists have worked tirelessly for over 100 years to “fundamentally transform” our Constitutional Republic to a Fascist Oligarchy.

Fascists have managed to effectively end freedom of speech, debate, and assembly by gaining controlling of academia, media, Big Business, and the government bureaucracy.

The fate of our Republic now lies in the hands Joe Manchin (the last remaining moderate Democrat) who has the power to end the filibuster, and ultimately, our Republic.

it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out..

Last edited 1 year ago by SAMURAI
Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 3, 2021 8:53 pm

I think Arizona U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema is siding with Manchin against the Democrat Machine.

The Democrat Machine is not happy with them.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 3, 2021 10:07 pm


Fascists have been working to reach this pivotal point for over 100 years, and I’d be very surprised (though delighted) to see Manchin and Sinema foil Fascists’ plans to seize it…

We’ll see soon enough.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 4, 2021 5:06 am

Yes, you are correct. We don’t really know which way they are going to go until they do it. Manchin voted to impeach Trump so he hasn’t always shown the best of judgement.

Vincent Causey
June 4, 2021 12:20 am

The hydroxychloroquine story given is not the way I remember it. I remember the initial promising studies, but then Trump got involved and endorsed it. Fauci was standing next to him. When it was Fauci’s turn to speak he immediately downplayed the idea – no, no, we can’t make these assumptions etc. From that point on any discussion of hydroxychloroquine by the media was negative.

Social media platforms removed or flagged any posts promoting the drug as misinformation. Then came that infamous Lancet study which was the first to supposedly show that hydroxychloroquine killed people. But barely had it been published than it had to be withdrawn because the hospital data provided for the study was found to be bogus and the company providing it fraudulent. Nevertheless, the attacks on hydroxychloroquine never ceased.

This public crushing of hydroxychloroquine (and other remedies) paved the way for the vaccine policy we now have as the only “effective remedy” to the pandemic. Such is the way politics controls science to affect particular agendas. Nothing has changed since Galileo asked the Catholic cardinals to look at the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, and they refused to look because the mere sight of them would have destroyed their beliefs.

M Courtney
June 4, 2021 1:10 am

1) alleging that scientific consensus involves conspiring to falsify data or suppress the truth;

But Climategate and “Hide the Decline” and Tiljander and Ben Santer changing conclusions after review demonstrates that this low bar for entry has not been reached by the “Consensus”. And they know it. That is why they refuse to be challenged.

2) citing fake experts or individuals while marginalizing, demonizing, or denigrating published experts;

An expert who makes no correct predictions is not an expert,. They are just purveyors of ill-informed opinion. Even if that ill-informed opinion is written in scientific language and peer reviewed by another person who shares that ill-informed opinion.

3) cherry-picking atypical or even obsolete papers;

Fair point about atypical papers. But not considering all papers non-obsolete papers is just as bad.

4) making unreasonable demands upon research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the findings while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models;

Yep. That’s wrong. But making unfounded and unjustified claims about uncertainty is wrong too and does need to be challenged.

5) comparing apples and oranges, promoting false equivalencies among competing ideas, or drawing flawed conclusions from scientifically valid research.

Well, that’s a bit broad brush. It’s a catch all for “not doing science”. But going back to the first point, this is exactly what the “consensus” merchants do when they claim it’s Big Tobacco’s playbook.

You can’t have a conference with those who break the basic rules of practicing science. It exposes them to ridicule.
So they will object to that conference ever existing.

June 4, 2021 2:26 am

I read some news about toyota alphard that it will gain new hybrid system, ride on a ‘high’ TNGA platform. I think it a nice contribution to the environment. Emission from cars should br controlled and reduced. Car makers should take action right now!

Kevin E Todd
Reply to  Earthwell
June 4, 2021 2:39 am

Yes, I agree with you. When it comes to cars, we all feel that they are a source of pollution manufacturing. BUT now carmaker are aware of their social responsibility.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kevin E Todd
Roger Knights
June 4, 2021 3:52 am

The article mentioned the recent consensus that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work and may be harmful. That may be changing. In the past week two pro-HCQ papers have appeared:

Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic (May 31, 2021) – study suggests HCQ studies failed to account for body weight in dosing, and at high enough doses they saw benefit and not too much Qt interval elongation

There’s also been a paper from Iran on the positive results of treating over 30,000 patients with HCQ vs. placebo, but I have lost the link.

Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2021 3:54 am

“Although it can offer critical thinking, philosophy is not a critique of science, but an equal, complementary discipline.”

When philosopher Alex Epstein testified to the Senate about climate change- Senator Barbara Boxer asked if he was a scientist and he replied that he was a philosopher- she then blasted him as unqualified to testify on climate. Epstein is a strong supporter of fossil fuels. His videos are very good:

Bruce Cobb
June 4, 2021 4:55 am

The time for debate is long gone. Done and dusted. The Climate Liars knew they couldn’t win over a decade ago, so shut down debate. The real science deniers are the Climate Liars, those on the so-called “consensus” side. To think that there can be debate now is gob-smackingly naive. This is war.

June 4, 2021 5:55 am

It’s interesting that the authors refer to HCQ in relation to COVID-19 where the consensus is that is doesn’t work, but MOST of the scientific publication say it does work if applied correctly (with Zn). See for a list of 248 publications. The authors got this wrong.
Here, the authors follow the consensus, which is not even based on the scientific facts and use this as an argument in how the opinion of the scientific community can change. But, here it is exactly the opposite as the consensus was from very early on against the use of HCQ as Trump said something positive about it. In reality even facebook had to admit it was wrong to remove pro-HCQ post as happened to me too.
So this example does exactly the opposite of what the authors claim to address. The consensus was wrong from the start but scientific work on the helpfulness of HCQ is supported by scientific studies, albeit not as good as is desired maybe. So it is similar to the climate discussion in a more direct way than the authors intend, science says A, but the consensus says B and the consensus is not budging yet.
After reading on HCQ I looked for an alternative, which is quercitine and started using it when sinitus started to develop. With Zn I managed to suppress a painful attack 4 times, 100% of the time, so I enjoy having this new knowledge on how RDRP viruses can be combatted.

Reply to  Dagmarius24
June 4, 2021 12:27 pm

“even facebook had to admit it was wrong to remove pro-HCQ post”

I must have missed that, when did it happen?

Mad Mac
June 4, 2021 5:58 am

Very interesting. In 1972 I became aware of Dr Folkman’s theory of tumor angiogenesis. I then induced tumors in rats and used rodhamine and fluorescein to trace vascular growth. I did this as a project for my masters thesis.

June 4, 2021 8:14 am

I was right with the paper until I got to this part:

What characterizes science denial? In 2009, Chris Hoofnagle, a Ph.D. physiologist, published a blog in the Guardian that lists the features of denialism in scientific research: 1) alleging that scientific consensus involves conspiring to falsify data or suppress the truth;

We saw conspiracy to falsify data and suppress the truth in the Climategate scandal. We saw the same with Peter Gleick. We saw the same with Caspar Amman and the Jesus paper. When there actually IS proven and documented conspiracy being engaged in by the leading lights of the “consensus”, their first claim is total nonsense, and very dangerous nonsense at that.

2) citing fake experts or individuals while marginalizing, demonizing, or denigrating published experts;

I object strenuously against the false dichotomy of “fake experts” vs “published experts”. Some published “experts” are fake as hell, and some unpublished experts really are experts. Peer-review in climate science is a sick joke, that’s why it’s called “pal review”. Here’s my experience with the fake expert Michael Mann and peer review.

So the first two of their ways to distinguish skeptics from “deniers” are absolute garbage.

Here are the other three:

3) cherry-picking atypical or even obsolete papers; 4) making unreasonable demands upon research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the findings while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models; 5) comparing apples and oranges, promoting false equivalencies among competing ideas, or drawing flawed conclusions from scientifically valid research.

Unfortunately, those are all highly subjective. For example, mainstream climate scientists refer to Tyndell’s 1860s’ papers on CO2 … “obsolete”, or “path-breaking”?

As to “comparing apples and oranges” and “drawing flawed conclustions from scientifically valid research”, here’s Gavin Schmidt doing that exact thing … and not one person has found a single incorrect statement in that post despite me asking a whole raft of scientists, including Gavin, to falsify it. Down to the last man, they’ve made up some bogus excuse and run for the door … who is the “denier” here?

Finally, anyone calling their scientific opponent a “denier” is not a scientist of any kind, because they are attacking and trying to discreit their opponent without the slightest reference to their ideas. People call me a “denier” all the time … funny how, when I confront them, they can NEVER tell me just what it is that they think I “deny”.

No surprise there … I deny nothing. Instead, I disagree with some things.

TL;DR version? Their means of distinguishing between skeptics and “deniers” is a sick joke, meaningless, misleading, and subjective.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
June 4, 2021 12:31 pm

Thank you for articulating that Willis – I felt much the same but was having trouble putting it to words.

June 4, 2021 9:36 am

I find it interesting that their example to illustrate denial vs. skepticism is yet another case where contrary research was opposed.

Clyde Spencer
June 4, 2021 10:39 am

“What is the difference between deniers of science and skeptics of science?”

The question is not framed properly. It should be “skeptics of a particular scientific hypothesis.” There are certainly “deniers of science.” However, I think that almost everyone falls into either the camp of “denier” or “acceptor” of ‘science.’ The difference is that some who claim to be supporters of science will often place authority above the formal process of the Scientific Method, which includes an attempt to reject the working hypothesis in favor of the null hypothesis, and when found necessary, modify the working hypothesis.

Kevin E Todd
June 8, 2021 6:33 pm

Previously, when it comes to cars, we think of exhaust, fuel consumption, and polluting the air environment. But nowadays, companies are increasingly aware of their social responsibility and are constantly improving their technology to reduce the environmental pollution caused by driving. Volvo is a typical example.
The Volvo S90 uses smart technology to support environmental causes.
The Volvo S90 is equipped with significant changes to the interior connectivity and infotainment system, integrating the multimedia functions required for driving.
It is also worth mentioning that Volvo’s signature “Cleanzone Clean Cabin” is standard across the range. So, in the context of the epidemic, choosing to travel by car is a good choice for the environment as well as for personal health and public health.

June 9, 2021 11:53 pm

Empiricism has proven itself to be a more reliable guide than speculation, and truth in science requires consideration of all observations, which must be presented like evidence to a jury.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights