Creating Knowledge Using Only Consensus
There’s much we can accomplish with but a fraction of the facts, although we often must take maximum advantage of every superstition and bias that the ignorant masses have to offer. Moreover, especially as voting season nears, now is the time to pander to the self-serving government bureaucrats and usual Democrat voters who all see what’s in our pockets as their revenues.
Unionized public school teachers, for example, are helping to pick the next president, beginning with electing for a second term a governor with Alzheimer’s who blames the state’s current 3-year drought on global warming. California’s Governor Brown is most famous for saying anything to sell the idea of using public money to build a bullet train to nowhere; and, for giving tax credits to wealthy Tesla buyers. Meanwhile, nothing is invested in water storage or using energy to desalinate water.
Every climate change junkie is busy putting on their jackboots for the next election. Adding to the increasingly obvious conclusion that global warming is nothing but Left versus right politics – having nothing to do with science – we have on the Left the likes of Al Gore, Howard Stern, Obama, Hillary and the usual Hollywood types from Whoopie to Ronstadt and all of the loons on the View who will wipe their feet on presidential hopefuls on the right like Republican Ted Cruz, a graduate of Princeton and Harvard, because they are global warming deniers.
The big difference between the two political parties — ostensibly representing the Left vs. the right — is that the Left is pro-UN; and, the Left believes in the centralization of planning of society by a big and powerful government. The right, however, believes the power of the people should have preeminence over government; and, the right is therefore, pro-individual liberty not pro-UN; and, the right believes in a smaller not bigger government and more not less personal freedom and responsibility.
The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. ~Dr. Philip Stott
Why are we funding Left-thinking, government-funded schoolteachers in academia to tell us global warming is real but we just can’t find it now because it’s hiding deep in the oceans? We’re all idiots if we allow our thinking to be swayed by the wisdom of academics and Hollywierds or listen to Leftist-inspired government propaganda. When we let government use our lack of understanding to play on our fears about a non-problem like climate change to justify stupidly insane policies, we’re simply acknowledging the fact that we live in a superlatively rich society.
Western society has the means to pay people to engage in nothing but esoteric thinking. Poorer cultures don’t have that luxury, not shielded by the convenience of making choices they don’t really have to live by. But, what are we receiving for our tax dollars, the billion dollars a day that is coming out of our pockets? Like the lawyer tax that eats into the earnings of the productive, we have a climate tax that lowers the net present wealth of the country, robs opportunity and impoverishes millions. Global warming has become a vanity science.
Like Scientology, has global warming become Hollywood and academia’s, prison of belief? Have you heard about scientific research (the Cook, et al. paper) proving there is a consensus of opinion among scientists that humanity is causing global warming? About the supposed 97% consensus, Richard Tol says, “If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.” Can’t we say the same about all of the defenders of what turns out to be a wholly unscientific study, and all those who parrot the results of a study that is patently absurd on its face, knowing full well such belief, as Hillary likes to say, requires a willing suspension of disbelief? And, who are these defenders and parrots if not solely on the side of the Democrat party, the government bureaucracy, Leftist-thinking school teachers and Uncle Commie?
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere…
Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analyzed were not, for no apparent reason…
The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…
Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal… one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman effort…
This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students… Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency… ~Richard Tol (See Andrew Bolt [97 per cent of climate scientists look shifty])
Sometimes it pays to take a look backward before moving forward, especially in science. If we are looking for problems to solve we’re looking in the wrong place. We need to start by defining the problem and it’s not climate change, it’s the politics of climate change. If the average temperature of the globe really was a problem we would of course want to find out what was causing it. And, we know that: nominally, the sun is the cause. The number of sunspots is a usual sign we use to get an insight into changes in solar activity. Over the last 150 years the correlation between CO2 and temperature is only 22%. However, the correlation with sunspots is 79%. And, when you combine the known effects of solar activity with various known ocean oscillations like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), the correlation is more than 95% (see -e.g. [Link])
So, who pops up next in the list of Left-thinking fear mongers? None other than Michael Mann of ‘hockey stick’ fame who put up an easily debunked conjecture about global warming stopping the AMO that is sure to result in a real-life replay of the fictional movie, “The Day After Tomorrow” (about New Yorkers burning books in a public library – like elderly folk in the UK in 2010 – to survive a bitter cold). Mann actually points to his debunked ‘hockey stick’ data to justify this conclusion. But, we are not seeing Mr. Mann putting his thumb in the eye of everyone who participated in the charade of Mannian hockey stick science, foisted on the public by the UN’s IPCC. This isn’t Mann’s way of putting his soiled reputation aside and coming clean after all of these years –i.e., owning-up to perpetrating a fraud, admitting global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic, apologizing for the hoodwink and for diminishing the credibility of science and wasting the country’s scarce resources. Nope. He’s serious, again. The truth? I thought we were talking about Western academia. Face it: we’ve lived long enough to know you do not go to America’s classrooms to find truth.
Telling us the world may end tomorrow, Mann wants us to ignore those who have actually studied the AMO and not tree rings. Ignore those who say the Atlantic its acting normally and as expected. Forget about statisticians, McShane and Wyner who found absolutely no signal whatsoever in the proxy data Michael Mann used to fabricate the apocryphal hockey stick graph to begin with. “It seems,” says Judith Curry ([Link]), “like strip bark bristlecones and Tiljander sediments can tell us about Gulf Stream flow rates, as well as global temperatures. Remarkable.” Mann simply says, One man’s signal is another man’s noise, and looks to Al Gore for another imminent doom docudrama.
Who would have imagined Michael Mann was a natural comedian? What will he say next, global warming is causing marijuana users to become heroin addicts? I am not always sure about who to believe but I’m pretty sure about what to believe –e.g., Climate models and Mannian proxies can be used to support just about any notion a Leftist-thinking, Earth-on-Fire-or-Iceball academic or Uncle Commie with a PhD wants them to support, irrespective of satellite observations or common sense or all of the natural factors that have caused the climate to change over the past thousands of years.