Wednesday, January 28, 2009

I love this consensus we've got going...

We are, of course, constantly being told that the anthropogenic climate science is absolutely settled and that anyone who doubts it is a liar or a madman—in short, a "denier".

And yet, people who know what the fuck they are talking about keep on coming out of the woodwork and gainsaying all of this. Today, via Watt's Up With That, it is James Hansen's former supervisor at NASA who has stated that he does not believe in this load of old crap: EU Referendum provides a comprehensive precis... [Emphasis mine.]
First published by the Senate EPW blog prop. Jame Inhofe, this has it that James Hansen's former NASA supervisor has declared himself a sceptic. Hansen, he says, has "embarrassed NASA" and "was never muzzled", although he should have been.

Our current hero is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr John S Theon. As Hansen's former supervisor, he joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on 15 January 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results."

"Hansen," he says, "was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it)." He thus embarrassed NASA "by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Theon is also declaring "climate models are useless." His own belief concerning AGW is that "the models do not realistically simulate the climate system." There are many very important "sub-grid scale processes" that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.

"Furthermore," he says, "some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it." Theon also charges that these scientists "have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists."

This, he adds, "is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

Seriously, the only irrational people on this planet are those who do not seriously doubt the... ah... science behind anthropogenic climate change.

As I have said many times, I and the other eeeeeeevil deniers are going to be proved to be absolutely correct, and those who have whole-heartedly embraced this hokum are not only going to look very stupid but also—having diverted billions from the economies of all nations and restricted growth and technological enhancement in the poorest countries—they are going to have the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings on their consciences.

And when all of this is eventually blown wide open, it will take many years before any scientists are ever taken seriously again. And, given the way that the scientific community has behaved over this issue, that is the very least that they deserve.

What a bunch of cunts...

28 comments:

Idle Pen Pusher said...

"they are going to have the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings on their consciences."

Somehow, DK, I doubt this will cause many sleepless nights...

Raggy said...

But but but surely St Obama will stop Global Warming....

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Personally, I have a very real fear that we're heading into a solar-powered mini Ice Age, and I think we should really be pushing out all the CO2 we can to minimise it.

Roger Thornhill said...

Indeed, Obo,

Rising temperatures are nothing compared to falling.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Obo, that's all well and good ... "But what are you going to do when the oil/coal runs out?"

If they can't get you with MMGW they'll get you with 'peak oil'.

Sue said...

I am a sceptic too I'm afraid but only in as much as I think they are vastly exaggerating the whole climate disaster theory. To assume we are all about to be fried is nonsense.

We certainly are doing no good with deforestation, urbanising green belt areas, damaging waterways and polluting the air though. It is in everyone's best interest to find alternatives to "dirty" fuels.

What I don't understand is where all the money has gone to fund all this research into new green technologies.

We are continually paying for the privilege of polluting with "green taxes" supposedly so these new technologies can be discovered and implemented.

Millions of pounds/euros later, we are still no nearer to even one sensible domestic solution. Is the B&Q home wind turbine the best they can come up with? Pathetic!

The only conclusion that I can come to is, it's one massive rip off.

A world government con! We're funding thousands of useless tree hugging scientists and lining the pockets of governments.

monoi said...

To be sceptical does not mean one is for pollution and waste.

In actual fact, the obsession with CO2 (a gas necessary to life least one forgets) means that the real pollutants are not dealt with.

I agree in part with your statement about research funding, although you could say that the CERN collider is not exactly cheap! The question really is whether governments and politicians are the best placed to decide where research should concentrate. I think we know the answer to that.

Also, a lot of the green taxes we pay go to line the pockets of windmill operators and other such charlatans...

Jiks said...

"Green" taxes are no more used to fund green power sources than smoking taxes are used to build cigarette factories.

basementcat said...

Given the way that governments have jumped on the bandwagon so readily, you ony have to assume that they are either a) cynically seeking a nice issue to trumpet for the popular vote b) cynically seeking to make some money out of it.

Al Gore, I suspect, is making a mint from all his public speaking/seminars. Happy to be proven wrong.

Having read a number of your threads on this matter I've completely lost faith in the scientists who spout it and the politicians who scaremonger it.

When I am Grand High Inquisitor, I shall have them sent to the Arctic with a thermometer up their crack to study it properly.

Toad Stomper said...

...[I]n the drift of years I by and by found that a Consensus examines a new thing by its feelings rather oftener than with its mind. You know, yourself, that this is so.…

Do you know of a case where a Consensus won a game? You can go back as far as you want to and you will find history furnishing you this (until now) unwritten maxim for your guidance and profit: Whatever new thing a Consensus coppers (colloquial for "bets against"), bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid.
There was that primitive steam engine -- ages back, in Greek times: a Consensus made fun of it. There was the Marquis of Worcester's steam engine, 250 years ago: a Consensus made fun of it. There was Fulton's steamboat of a century ago: a French Consensus, including the Great Napolean, made fun of it. There was Priestly, with his oxygen: a Consensus scoffed at him, mobbed him, burned him out, banished him. While a Consensus was proving, by statistics and things, that a steamship could not cross the Atlantic, a steamship did it. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in Great Britain made fun of Jenner and inoculation. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in France made fun of the stethoscope. A Consensus of all the medical experts in Germany made fun of that young doctor (his name? forgotten by all but doctors, now, revered by doctors alone) who discovered and abolished the cause of that awful disease, puerperal fever; made fun of him, reviled him, hunted him, persecuted him, broke his heart, killed him. Electric telegraph, Atlantic cable, telephone, all "toys," of no practical value -- verdict of the Consensuses. Geology, paleontology, evolution -- all brushed into space by a Consensus of theological experts, comprising all the preachers in Christendom, assisted by the Duke of Argyle and (at first) the other scientists.

-- Mark Twain

Henry Crun said...

Sue, I think I love you.

Pogo said...

As a (now retired) physicist, ie proper scientist, I am deeply saddened to have to come to terms with the popular modern view of "scientists", namely that promulgated by this shower of extortion-funded charlatans.

Prof Brignell was absolutely correct - we are heading into a new dark age of science.

Sue said...

I love you too hun!

Sue said...

Was that sexist?

Assegai Mike said...

I'm with Sue too! The problem is that the vast army of dodgy climate scientists are undermining genuine environmental problems, and indeed science itself.

gordon-bennett said...

they are going to have the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings on their consciences

Yeah, just like peter fucking hain and all those other self-righteous twats are contrite about how South Africa has turned out.

Ron said...

I don't think you should paint the scientific community as a bunch of public rejection-deserving cunts because of perceived statements coming from "science" over the AGW issue. This just demonstrates a misunderstanding of how science actually works.

I am a working scientist. I am also an individual and I have to be able to stand alone as an individual because science is a very solitary existence. When I speak on scientific matters I don't speak as the scientific community and neither do any other scientists. I disagree with my scientific colleagues about many different things- this is normal. Being skeptical is an essential part of being a scientist. Scientists hate consensus because it is boring and it means an end to science.

"Scientific" consensus (as opposed to the usual method of normal science) only appears when there are no more questions to ask (ie no science to be done) or, more often, when politicians ask particular scientists to help them make policy.

With AGW there has been a happy accidental meeting of a scientific theory and a political agenda. Left to its own devices science would trundle on, models would be discredited, new ideas would emerge, and nobody in the wider world would really care very much. Science is never "right", proof is never achieved. Press pause and you kill science.

But in the case of AGW a particular scientific idea has been co-opted by forces not of science and this has the effect of perverting science in this area and destroying its normal progress.

Scientists are not a borg-like entity who deserve to be ignored because of the arrogant consensus views they try to impose on the world. Real science stays below the radar, sometimes producing things and ideas that are useful to humanity, while advancing understanding of the natural world. PR and communicating with the public is usually not a natural thing for scientists and this is why those disagreeing with the AGW theory are usually quite invisible.

It doesn't matter in terms of the science who is right and who is wrong. That is completely irrelevant and is a thing for politicians, not scientists. Throwing the scientists out with what is now a politically motivated movement would be the ultimate in stupidity, wherever the evidence ultimately leads.

The Penguin said...

It's a gravy train for the scientists and an opportunity for raising taxes and pursuing dodgy agendas by politicians.

There's only one thing that influences our climate, all else is dependent upon it, and that is the Sun.

The Penguin.

west2 said...

While agreeing with much of what you have said Ron, Scientists can not distance themselves from this.

They had a responsibility to speak out, in many cases they did not.

It is understandable why - funding, career etc. Yet silence is acceptance and they are compromised.

The people promoting AGW have been and are passionate (see Real Climate) yet day by day as the ediffice crumbles, they still attempt to use science to deny this. (Antartic Warming/Cooling - we knew that and predicted it).

Some of course have a political agenda and it is the latter that have caused havoc.

This situation didn't happen overnight as some seem to think. The politics of AGW lie in the use of science, environmentalism and the current fad for small groups of people (exemplified by NGO influence) wishing to intefere and control large groups of people.

AGW has morphed to Climate Change. Denier is starting to morph to Contrarian, very telling.

west
----

Jules said...

i think ron nails it best when he says (rightly, i believe) that here, a scientific theory has collided with a political agenda.

sadly that political agenda is exploited shrilly and powerfully by the rump of communist ideology - a rump that has deftly morphed itself into a resurgent green movement.

well, monbiot and his band of merry cunts had to go somewhere didn't they?

John A said...

Unlike Professor Lomborg, I do not buy into "only humans can affect climate" AGW - but I do largely agree with with his conclusions - that there are far more effective ways to accomplish more, and for a lot less money, and most of it will be valuable whether temperatures go up or down.

Sue said...

I have a great respect for scientists. They're far cleverer than I am for a start but I do think that this whole climate debate has got out of hand.

The politicians have discovered that this is a "nice little earner" and unfortunately there are some scientists that think that way too.

Personally, I just wish they would make up their bloody minds what is going on and let everyone know THE TRUTH!

I'm just sick of all the lies!

Oldrightie said...

A lot of new friends here. Sue, how could you! I thought I was your new "one and only"!
Climate change has existed before human life, God has decreed it will continue after.

Ron said...

Scientists are just like other people. Some scientists are corrupt, some are stupid and some don't even follow the scientific method. Some even get paid to knowingly push an agenda. Some are merely incompetent. Just like any other group of people you get good scientists and bad ones.

But this doesn't mean science should be dismissed as useless or get the blame as if it was some homogenous institution. Left to its own devices the method of science, which is still intact, will eventually correct mistakes.

Blaming scientists for not speaking up is I think unfair because some have done so and science doesn't speak with a single voice. Naturally the best funded voices following the politically decreed agenda are the loudest.

Roger Thornhill said...

Sue, it is not just "a nice little earner" for politicians, but a great way to bully, control and oppress. However, I do think this bullying works so well because there are many ways in which money can be gotten - not "earned", not "made" even, just "gotten", as in "ill-".

Jones said...

Said it before, say it again; AGW is political dogma, not science.

west2 said...

Point taken Ron - "Blaming scientists for not speaking up is I think unfair because some have done so and science doesn't speak with a single voice."

The appearence is that some do not speak up, though it really doesn't help when the peer review process is broken.

This removes, in some cases, an opportunity for them to present a contrarian view in those much loved 'peer reviewed' studies.

west
----

whoops said...

just to reiterate what has been said above, the real tragedy is that things humans DO affect- pollution of lakes, cutting down forests, killing elephants; that sort of thing are all being ignored while everyone gets all concerned about AGW.