The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

Someone was pressured to retract a paper??

YOU regularly promote than on this board.

There are thousands of papers. And, you give no indication why this paper was retracted - if it actually was.

And, this is an example of exactly what I've been saying. You give no background on what the authors of the paper or scientists in general are saying.

Like with your "retraction watch", you are doing nothing more than trying to deprecate science.

 

The deprecating was done by the climatologists who quashed research with which they disagreed. The details are in the link in the paragraph 5 of my post. They did not practice what you advocate.

 

Substitute "economics" for climatology, and see how that works for you. Economics has been taken over by neoclassical nonscience that is completely unable to make reliably accurate predictions more complex than, "The recent trend will continue." I see a lot of parallels with climatology: there is an agenda, and the "scientists" know what they have to say to get published, to get the good jobs, to get grant money, etc. In both cases, very, very few of the "experts" are willing to stand up and identify their emperor's lack of clothing.

 

So far, you're claiming that some paper was retracted for some reason.

Yet you're so happy with retractions that you cite them frequently.

 

There is no climate agenda, other than that people understand what's actually happening. That's it.

You don't have any evidence of the conspiracy you are claiming to exist.

You clearly have no idea how grants are allocated.

If a scientist or group of scientists presented a sound climate theory that countered anthropogenic warming, they would be famous.

The motivation in science is to extend our understanding of our universe.

 

I'm disappointed you did not bother learn the facts of the matter in this case -- disappointed but not surprised.
The bullying and avoidance of debate-on-the-merits in this case well illustrate the corruption that infects too much of climatology.

 

Sometimes there really is a conspiracy.
America’s judiciary is quietly receiving ‘training’ from leftwing climate group
Guest Blogger
America’s judiciary has been quietly receiving climate change arbitration “training” from a “little-known judicial advocacy organization” financed by “left-wing nonprofits.” Here are the details, from the article itself: . . .

 

Then you missed the point. The point was, since you missed it, that the AGW faithful have enlisted the tactics of China in their unwillingness to have honest or open discussions about their BS regarding the horrors of climate change. That's what China does. It's what the left in this country seem to be demanding as well. I understand your grandstanding here. It is unnecessary though, your transparent attempt to ignore the conversation and launch into whataboutisms though is duly noted.

 

That is a false, absurd, and profoundly uninformed view. This very thread has identified dozens of examples of the imposition of the agenda, which is to:
1. falsely attribute the bulk of post-LIA warming to CO2;
2. frighten people with wildly exaggerated and false claims that further increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause catastrophically harmful warming far exceeding the benefits of using fossil fuels; and
3. enlist government to prevent people in advanced Western countries from using fossil fuels.

That is just another bald falsehood from you. There is reams of evidence, starting with the climategate emails and continuing with many of the posts in this thread, especially by Jack.

Like the economists that have presented sound economic theories that counter mainstream neoclassical economics? Without using a search engine, can you name one?

Thought not.

In theory. Once it's someone's livelihood, the incentives change. Human nature is not pretty, but it is what it is.

 

Those are methods you claim are being used.

They are not an agenda.

Also, the faster warming since the industrial age has been attributed to several factors, with anthropogenic factors being significant.

Are you seriously suggesting in 2 that scientists are wildly exaggerating findings and that they need to change their results to be less frightening?? Seriously??

Anthony Watts runs the WUWT blog. He is a climate denier. He has no college degree.

The "climategate" incident has been examined by multiple organizations of science and they showed that those claiming bad science behavior had simply failed to understand what was being said. This incident was a failure of understanding by Anthony Watts.

Yes, posters on this board who deny anthropogenic climate change go to WUWT for ammunition, as Watts searches for stories that can be pitched in a negative light - such as "climategate".

Let's remember that any single blog can include mistakes or show science in a bad light - almost always without the opportunity for scientists to address that specific blog.

There are multiple prominent schools of economics, including Keynes and Smith.

There are individual prominent economists that have gained influence.

During Ford's administration, the "Laffer Curve" came into prominence and has been the darling of conservatives - a theory that if you tax less, the taxing body will see increased revenue.

Claiming that has any relationship to science or reality is just plain stupid.

 

They are self-evidently and indisputably an agenda.

The CO2 climate narrative says only CO2 is significant -- that is the only possible reason LIA temperatures are always called, "pre-industrial" rather than the more informative, "late Holocene minimum" -- because the agenda is to stop people in advanced countries from using fossil fuels.

No, I am stating explicitly that most of them are shading their findings to exaggerate the effects of CO2 on temperature and/or the expected harmful results of increased temperature.

No. I am saying that they need to change their methods to be more realistic and scientifically responsible.

That is a meaningless epithet that only proves you are engaging in ad hominem propaganda, not rational debate.

Anthony Watts does not deny that there is a climate. He does not deny that climate changes. He does not deny that human beings can affect the climate.

So in what sense, exactly, is he a "climate denier"?

That is a blatant ad hominen fallacy.

GARBAGE. I have read the relevant emails, and the meaning of what was being said was perfectly clear: they were conspiring to falsify climate research, and to suppress any attempt to expose their fraud in the peer-reviewed journals. The multiple corrupt whitewashes by their friends does not alter that fact.

Poisoning the Well fallacy. Peer-reviewed research that challenges the CO2 climate narrative is not "pitched in a negative light." It is an attempt to engage in the basic activity of science: checking scientific claims.

WUWT allows scientists ample opportunity to debate, and some do participate.

Keynesianism is a school, but the only prominent school these days -- the only school permitted to be taught in most universities in the West, especially in the USA -- is the neoclassical school. Smith is not a school, he was an economist of the classical school. As I predicted, you are unable to name a single economist who has challenged the neoclassical hegemony.

But you don't know any of them, because the neoclassical hegemony has successfully suppressed their work.

The claim was that we are on the right side of the curve, where increasing tax rates reduces revenue. It has been proved that we are on he left side of the curve, where increasing tax rates increases revenue.

Economics is supposed to be a science that describes and understands reality; but like climatology, it has been taken over by an agenda that falsifies its subject matter and suppresses dissent.

 

Work continues to build out the MoT.
UN Puts “Climate Integrity” at the Heart of their 2024 Election Plan
Eric Worrall
“… We’ve seen narratives created … to delay climate action … a challenge we cannot afford to ignore as we head into a bumper election year in 2024…”

 

Ran across this article this week. Seems to have a laser lock on the mass hallucination and fraud that is the "climate change" theocracy and the whole idea that we should just trust "scientists" and "experts" despite the fact that consensus has never in history been the way science has actually worked. Thought you and the other rational folk here might enjoy it.

https://thinkspot.com/discourse/jMu...otection-from-tyranny-of-the-majority/XGtJz1X

 

The climateers throw stones from inside their glass houses.
Online Rag Funded by Green Billionaires Peddles Cheap Smear About Tory MP and Shoots Itself in Foot
Guest Blogger
For some inexplicable reason, no ‘settled’ climate science practitioners will debate their findings in public with critical interviewers, so both GB News and TalkTV are reduced to ‘balancing’ their coverage…

 

The Ministry of Truth has powerful supporters.
Climate And Energy Fantasy and Tyranny
Guest Blogger
What many call the Climate Industrial Complex has a monumental stake in perpetuating this situation. Collectively, its members have incredible power, control much of government and education, hold enormous financial…

 

Another day, another dose of propaganda.
Media Outlets Continue Spreading False Amazon “Record Drought” Claims
DROUGHT FEBRUARY 2, 2024

 

If the alarmists can't convince you then they will compel you.
Study: Psychological Interventions Do Not Work on Climate Skeptics
Eric Worrall
The study authors suggest “top down interventions” will be required. . . .

 

The alarmists have your instructions ready.
Commentary: “The Tone Against Alleged ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Is Becoming Harsher”
By P Gosselin on 10. February 2024

Press release:
Denunciation of alleged “climate deniers” encourages disinterest in environmental protection
Advisory center: “Arrogant instruction and education destroys the motivation to participate!”
Hat-tip: Klimanachrichten

The tone against alleged “climate change deniers” is becoming harsher. Some television programs are now trying to change viewers’ mindsets by using language to educate them – and to convince all skeptics and doubters of the threat posed by the change in temperatures, now referred to as global warming.

This top-down, patronizing form of education does a disservice to the actual goal – namely to encourage a more conscious lifestyle and participation in community change. This view is shared by Dennis Riehle (Constance), head of the consultancy for sustainable development and change management, who explains: “I myself have always emphasized that I am very committed to environmental protection and sustainability. But not because of hysterical climate activism, whose supporters are primarily concerned with self-profiling – and who intend to impose their radical minority opinion on the majority of society in order to drive forward a change in the representative system towards oligarchic structures.

In a nutshell, you could say that the ‘Last Generation’ – spoiled by overprotection and prosperity – is trying to realize its prepubescent desire for attention through infantile and meaningless protests. But the community cannot take the blame for a laissez-faire upbringing.

Technology – not paternalism

There is no doubt that we have lived beyond our means in the industrial age and exploited nature. Putting this damage into perspective and getting used to new circumstances seems to me to be our main task, which we can accomplish with innovation and confidence in research and technology, but certainly not with paternalism and prohibitions. We should be concerned with acclimatization and convergence rather than fighting against a development whose multifactorial causes we still know all too little about.

Accordingly, investing vast sums in the desperate attempt to influence evolution seems rather absurd. Rather, prevention and adaptability are needed, because we as humans are by no means helpless. It is worth continuing with approaches such as water management and geoengineering,” explains the 38-year-old psychological consultant and coach from Lake Constance.

“Considerable deficits in objectivity”

“I cannot recognize a significant connection between the CO2 hypothesis and global warming – which I do not deny in principle, but which I place in a much larger temporal frame of reference than the now rather tendentious science. I see considerable deficits in objectivity, especially with regard to the inductive inference techniques used by the IPCC, among others, which on the one hand arrive at a trend statement from the stringing together of individual observations and computer modeling, the reliability of which must be questioned quite clearly in view of empirical reflection, but on the other hand also focus solely on the last 100 years and thus reduce the extent of the planet’s gigantic history to a snapshot. There is a lack of common sense and logic.

Ignored factors

And, of course, other factors have so far been completely ignored – from hydrogen and methane to solar activity and the interactions between natural anomalies. The exclusive focus on man-made carbon dioxide emissions was therefore not open-ended – which is why an essential principle of serious scientific work has already been violated here.

Ultimately, the current narratives are only suitable for manipulating civilization in order to get it to think and act in an ideologically desired way – and to bring a transformation to its knees that not only lacks pragmatic foresight and economic and social compatibility, but also puts populations worldwide in a destructive state of panic and uncertainty,” concludes the consultant for sustainable development and opportunity management. . . . .

 

Imagine that! People with enough sense to be unconvinced by hysterical anti-CO2 nonscience remain just as unconvinced by transparent psychological manipulations.

This sort of BS is actually quite sinister, and all too reminiscent of the totalitarian political ideologies of the 20th century.

 

The Germans want to lead the march to authoritarianism.
Germany Moving to Authoritarianism “Those Who Mock State, Must Have To Deal With Powerful State”
By P Gosselin on 16. February 2024

Germany’s online NIUS.de here reports on the totalitarianism spreading across Germany

This week, high ranking ministers of Germany’s socialist/green government, with its proposed “Democracy Security Act”, announced plans to crack down on dissent and free speech in Germany.



Image: Phoenix, cropped here.

“The German federal government is moving to ban what we want to say, the secret service wants to control what we think. They say it so openly so that we are afraid. What has happened this week is historic,” reports NIUS.de here.

Legal speech would be punishable

German Family Minister Lisa Paus (Greens) said that with the new “Democracy Security Act”, they would also pursue even online hate speech that falls “below the threshold of criminal liability”. That means that even if the “hate” speech does not meet the criminal standard, the German police forces could still come knocking on your door!

Mocking the state will be punishable

Meanwhile Germany’s Minister of the Internal Security, Nancy Faeser, Socialist party, said that citizens must no longer be allowed to even mock the government, once a cornerstone of democracy and free speech.

She told at a press conference: “Now we urgently need the Democracy Security Act, that’s what I’m calling for. We have to strengthen the civil institutions with their work against extremism. In my view, the German Parliament must pass this act. Those who mock the state must have to deal with a powerful state.”

Head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Thomas Haldenwang, added he would unleash the power of his office against statements that are not even punishable. “Yes, that’s right, it has no relevance under criminal law, but it is still a threat to the welfare of the state.” and words that could endanger the welfare of the state.

Government overreach

“It is not you who should still decide how you meant your own words, but the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. It’s no longer about what we say, it’s suddenly about what Thomas Haldenwang wants to have heard, reports NIUS.de. “From now on, Thomas Haldenwang wants to decide which words are “endangering the welfare of the state.”

The “Democracy Security Act” aims to clamp down on – among other things – disinformation and hate speech in the Internet.

Critics say, however, say the act goes to far and would violate Germany’s Constitution, and so is in itself a threat to democracy. Others say the act is more about forbidding government opposition, dubbing it the Government Protection Act.

 

You'd think they'd have learned the first couple of times they tried that crap.

 

smh...

 

The alarmists' Orwellian project continues.
Senior Canadian Legislator Tables Bill to Jail People Who Speak Out in Favour of Fossil Fuels
Guest Blogger
The NDP bill is an attack on free commercial speech and seeks to demonise an industry that is vital to modern life. . . .

 

Euro Greens are circling the drain. Can their US counterparts be far behind?
Green Movement Is Failing…Now They’re Trying To Force Citizens To Love Them
By P Gosselin on 20. February 2024

Like an abusive husband, who beats his wife to make her love him



Image: Freepik

Today, especially in Germany, the socialist-green movement is failing miserably and plummeting in the polls – to record low levels. Desperate, socialist-green governments in Europe are now resorting to heavy-handed tactics to force citizens to “like” them again.

Growing censorship, opposition bans

For example, the EU has just enacted the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU), which is a regulation regarding “illegal content, transparent advertising, and disinformation”.

Meanwhile, Germany is pushing to enact a draconian Democracy Security Act, designed to seriously curb online speech and obliterate opposition.

Will backfire

As well-intentioned as these new laws may sound, they are all designed to distract for the huge problems the green movement is causing and to stifle opposition and free speech. It’s an abusive relationship that’s never going to work.

Like a husband who beats his wife, the beatings will probably just get worse the more he gets rejected by her. That’s how things are getting in Germany. Industry is headed to the intensive care unit and the green movement is failing. Some examples follow:

Electric vehicles being rejected

Blackout News here reports how German software giant SAP “no longer wants to use Tesla electric cars as company cars in future.” and is “removing the electric car manufacturer from its list of suppliers”.

Car rental companies Sixt and Hertz also no longer want Tesla, announcing “they would be significantly reducing the proportion of electric vehicles in their large fleets.”

Cuts at German Ford plant

In another article, Blackout News reports that Ford is cutting 3500 of 4500 jobs at its Saarloius, Germany plant, citing a “restructuring program.” Deindustrialization is accelerating in Germany.

Production slowdown at Opel

German car manufacturer Opel has announced reduced work-hours at its Eisenach plant “due to low demand” as a “direct response to falling demand for the Opel Grandland SUV, which is offered in variants including an innovative plug-in hybrid.”

e-vehicle market forecast to fall 14% in 2024!

Finally Blackout News reports that the German government’s target of selling 15 million vehicles by 2030 is “completely utopian”, citing experts who are in fact forecasting a 14% decline in the electric car market by 2024.”

 

What is wrong with you people? Seriously?