Climategate II: Scientist Muzzled by Climate Change Worshipping Scientific Community
Another scientist silenced. Galileo anyone?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
His story was relatively benign.
This is Lysenkoism - State Approved Science.
And we should start calling it such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
The really devastating thing is these people may kill Science and open the doors to all sorts of irrationalism.
There have always been frauds, scams and irrational movements but this one has co-opted not just the establishment but those educated in the scientific method.
There are various explanations, all valid to some extent.
The main one is perhaps the scariest- it is altruism by which any cruelty, stupidity, damage, and injustice can be used in a good cause- 'the noble lie', 'the means justify the ends'.
Personally I find this very difficult so I use the term ' false altruism'.
There may be hope when
what passes for climate science is not science,
and the frauds, persecution of dissenters, and the money trail
become more widely known.
The politicization of this is amazing. People with expertise in policy and not science observe the scientific process and see a conspiracy to get answers most everyone hates, answers that apparently show a hidden cost to tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity.
If I just read Ayn Rand but hadn't met any of the nutjobs, I would think people whom this book appeals to will accept scientific theories, be open to data that changes theories, and face the world as it is, the things that work out in our favor and things that seem to line up against us. My wife's practice focuses on illness, death, and taxes, so we're constantly reminded that random chance can line up against you and take everything away in an instant. It's ghastly how people who seem reasonably healthy in their 20s need to put their affairs in order b/c of a terminal diagnosis. I can't imagine it being me or my kids. Some people accept the science, and some people turn to non-scientific alternative medicine and fantastical stories. I say with intentional irony, "We'll never know if I would turn to denial because it will ever happen to anyone in our family."
The issue of dealing with the costs of climate change is trifling compared to personal tragedies, but the response is similar. We can accept the scientific models, knowing that scientific models by their very nature invite scientists to tear them apart and prove them wrong, or we can start with the answer we want and accept it on faith or look for data to support it. Most people who haven't read Ayn Rand probably think it's about the latter: politics ahead of empiricism. This is why I only mention specific ideas from the books but rarely say "Ayn Rand"-- people think it's about political orthodoxy and wishful thinking in place of observation, experimentation, and doing work to solve problems. They have it completely backwards.
What is it you don't take seriously, that Lennart Bengtsson's paper was refused and he was blackballed within the climate science community? Do you doubt or deny it happened, or is it unimportant because Bengtsson's conclusions differ from yours, and the scientific method is only scientific if it agrees with you?
I agree, the politicization of climate science is amazing, but the politicization is ALL coming from the left, from anthropogenic global warming believers. NO ONE on the other side of the argument advocates rejecting or silencing people doing objective research that might show AGW to be true.
I'd be thrilled if I thought man could actually determine earth's climate. It would solve so many problems. So far though, we're still working hard, trying to make it rain when we want it to.
I don't hear Ayn Rand in your remarks. You're very indirect and you wander and equivocate; very unRandian. Have you actually read "Atlas Shrugged", or are you another pretender? It's quite an investment, days of your life, when you already know how the story ends. I find though it's not the ending that convinces, it's the getting there that turns the trick.
I only reject the claim it's politically-motivated.
"Do you doubt or deny it happened, or is it unimportant because Bengtsson's conclusions differ from yours, and the scientific method is only scientific if it agrees with you?"
I don't have any scientific conclusions about climate change. I only accept the consensus. The consensus will change as new research is done. The big breakthroughs start with "wait... that's interesting".
"the politicization of climate science is amazing, but the politicization is ALL coming from the left"
I long ago stopped believing in the whole left/right thing. It's funny that there's a left/right position and "sides"on some scientific issue like climate change.
"I'd be thrilled if I thought man could actually determine earth's climate. It would solve so many problems. So far though, we're still working hard, trying to make it rain when we want it to."
Yes. I believe we will learn to control the climate. We need to IMHO b/c even if we eliminated all greenhouse gases, which is not feasible, it would only slow the natural change in climate. We need to control the climate in a way favorable to human activities.
"I don't hear Ayn Rand in your remarks."
I only read Fountainhead and AS. Rand came up when I was at this church meeting in 2011 about healthcare and I realized that many people could not accept anything bad about PPACA. It was a political battle, in their minds, and the good guys fought mindlessly in favor of all things PPACA. I supported most aspects of PPACA, but that's not the point. The point is they saw it as a political battle of good vs evil, which I categorically reject. One of them mentioned the critics being Ayn Rand like. I asked for details, and the people apparently had not read the books at all and could not answer. That inspired me to pick the first one I happened upon at the library-- Fountainhead. I realized why they might not like it. It was condemning, according to my reading, that mindless politicking they were doing. Primarily for unrelated reasons, I starting going to a different UU congregation in my area. I read AS next.
For completely unrelated reasons, I'm trying to start a local book club focused on high-tech business. If I can keep people interested, I'm going to suggest AS. No way would I start with AS, though, because the misinformation that it's about politics might scare people away.
Regarding the ending, I didn't care for that part. There's this human "flood myth" need to think that the world as become decadent and everything must be destroyed so that good may rise from the ashes. I identified more with Dagny who was saying, "wait, why are you guys just giving up?" The ending, though, was to drive home how ungrateful politically-minded people are toward those who actually do the work.
It is a human characteristic to want to be on, or to be a supporter of, the winning side.
Yes, there is a consensus, it is of the governing classes, the chattering classes, the mass media. What government would not want to be saving the planet, and getting a reason to increase taxes and control as a side effect?
However science, facts, evidence, do not come from majority vote.
Opinions of the ethical are based on evidence, analysis and thought. To support mass media propaganda when you know it is based only on emotion is cowardice.
Consider this story about Einstein on Special relativity
Opponents: One hundred physics PhDs from the most prestigious German universities, with copious numbers of publications
Proponent: A. Einstein: Teaching diploma; Swiss patent clerk; two papers (not peer reviewed)
Actually, here, that story does not apply as the fake 97% claims show, scientists, in particular the most eminent and retired consider carbon warming as bogus.
It's like if I got a grave illness, according to medical experts. I can accept that or I can find the minority view of people who will tell me that the illness is s scam by the pharmaceutical industry to keep people on maintenance drug. They don't want you to know about his homeopathic treatment, they say.
I wouldn't become a medical scientist so I can fully understand the scholarly journals, but I would learn enough to understand some of the abstracts. Then I go with the scientific consensus and ignore the homeopaths who are telling me exactly what I want hear..
Taking advice from a set of politically motivated UN scam artists, well meaning (sometimes) but ignorant do-gooders, celebrities, and crony-capitalists taking subsidies is bad. Taking advice from those who have established expertize before government money distorted the field is better. Doing one's own investigation, at least to confirm the applicability of the knowledge to the situation is better still.
No, I think the truth will come out by scientists testing hypotheses, esp ones that would overturn currently-accepted theories.
"There are trillions of dollars wrapped up in this politicized debate-it's not a scientific one."
Science tries to stay value-neutral, but its practitioners are human beings. Since tens of trillions of dollar of economic activity generates greenhouse gases, I suspect politics would push to pressures evidence of the cost of emissions. Maybe the costs are much higher than we think. I have no idea. I can't go making things up, but if I were guessing which way politics influences science, I would expect it to understate the costs. I have to act, though, on what the scientific consensus shows and stay open to new information.
"In fact, VP Al Gore became a billionaire taking money from those who want to be at the top of the climate change business."
I don't think Gore is a billionaire, but it's not relevant to the topic of accepting the world as it is.
"After all-your president declares it so, it must be."
What? I'm guessing you mis-typed.
"I resent the ad hominem attack of "nutjob."
Poor choice of words for my frustration with Rand being associated with particular policy ideas, esp ones not supported by the evidence. Before I read the books I had heard that Rand was about blinding accepting politics. I was shocked when I read them and found out they're saying the opposite. The books meant a lot to me because I used to see people being political and I'd think person A is supporting person B to get a reaction out of people C because he wants money to go live their dream, and this is one way to get it. She shows us Peter Keating supporting person B to get a reaction out of people C because he has no dream and just lives for the reaction he gets from others-- He wants to intimidate the housekeeper; he wants to anger competitors; he wants people to say he's a great guy. It's not so he can earn money to live his dream. He's an empty shell who wants a reaction, any reaction, from other people. He doesn't build stuff and take satisfaction at the beauty or utility of what he built. It's all about other people.
This sounds off-topic, but it's how I see all politics. I actually think some politicians, maybe Al Gore (I've never met him and have no idea), try to get a reaction out of people to earn money and get what they want. I don't respect that, but I respect less the people who get drawn into politics, not to get promotion or something, but simply because there's nothing inside them. The "nutjobs" are these people who get sucked into politics and claim it's part of a philosophy of eschewing politics.
An interesting argument but wrong.
Not just the expert should condemn the carbon warming gibberish but the majority if they were informed and enlightened. However like other issues where there is voting, the majority have an interest, but those on the take have a bigger interest. Further, by cloaking the argument in do-goodism, saving the planet, false altruism takes over.
For better or worse, money talks. Big green outweighs even big oil, they have incomes measured in billions per year, and, big oil as well as banking, supports big green. Quite rational, greens would wipe out the only competitor to oil which is coal. Banking benefits by these crackpot carbon trading and offset schemes.
Those who think renewables can soon take over are innumerate dreamers.
To find out who is behind it, follow the money trail. For AGW the amounts are so large there are many approaches. For example to find out who supports carbon climate crap at MIT go to-
http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/all...
There are government agencies and a great swag of corporates -
--companies that produce fake solar generation, car manufacturers who get green subsidies, big oil, electricity suppliers who sell oil generated power. Note- high tax on oil covers up the companies' take' without reducing demand as there is no substitute - except coal, and electricity generating companies who use oil are in competition with coal fired generators.
Government and its agencies- more taxes, more to give away, more government jobs, more control.
Government funded science- not much of that left, replaced by propaganda.
Carbon neutral- likewise. Life is to be enhanced, if one wants. Therefore choose carbon positive as a better slogan. CO2 is a giver and enhancer of life, more is more.
Go Carbon Positive!
Coal is renewable. It just takes a few million years.
Oil is renewable, see above.
Wind is not renewable; when the moon has escaped orbit, and the Earth's rotation slows, the winds may well die off as the atmosphere outgasses into space.
Solar is not renewable; when the sun goes boom... no more solar power.
Typical of the left, the measurement scale is self-centric. "history" is stuff that happened within their lifetimes. "renewable" is replaceable within their lifetimes.
(I'm not saying you're on the left, the above is meant facetiously).