The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

No, it's a way of insisting that if you challenge politically mandated shibboleths, you aren't allowed to make a living in the field you understand better than the gatekeepers.

 

They were grants to organizations, not to Soon. Your fabrication on that point has been debunked many times. You simply ignore the fact that your claim has been proved false and repeat it anyway.

No it isn't.

No he hasn't. He's been attacked by La Carbonostra, but that is not the same thing as having trouble with his science.

 

Its capture by corporate money is.

Yes, they do. Papers reported in the media get cited more often, giving them a patina of credibility.

Yes, they are. You can see it in the obligatory genuflection to anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering even in papers that flat-out disprove it.

Then you don't know much about how consent is manufactured.

Whenever a scientist's research is tangentially related to climate, he can improve his chances of publication by inserting a genuflection to anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering.

That's why they retroactively alter decades-old data to reduce previous temperatures and create a spurious warming trend. It has no effect on agricultural practice today.

 

That's just baldly false.

There is ample evidence of it, not least the climategate emails.

What "science"? Computer models that say whatever they are told to say? Retroactively altered temperature data that contaminate results in every field of study where they are used? That "science"?

Garbage. Just a handful of well-funded individuals in key positions of power who are committed to putting their thumbs on the scale -- like William Connolley at Wikipedia and the editors of half a dozen prestigious journals -- can have enormous influence, especially in what was once a niche field like climatology.

 

GARBAGE. It is in the nature of conspiracies to be secretive, so there is no obligation to blow open the whole organization before one can even mention the word. Means and motive are enough to make the possibility credible.

As to why anyone would bother, consider this: who benefits? Well, the fact is, both supply and demand for oil are very inelastic, so if someone puts their thumb on either side of the market, price is affected dramatically, as we have seen demonstrated repeatedly. So if you can get other countries to use significantly less oil, the price you have to pay for it will be dramatically lower. Make no mistake about it: trillions of dollars are at stake, and the cost of completely owning a niche scientific field like climatology is in the low-single-digit billions. Money well spent. Virtually all major world governments would like to see lower oil prices, including all the largest economies: the USA, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, India, Italy, Spain, Brazil, etc. The only exceptions are Russia and Canada. The US government would dearly love to reduce the oil revenues of "hostile" states like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and even Saudi Arabia. Do you really think the clandestine interests that faked the USA into disastrous, futile, decades-long, trillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't fake climate science?? If you do, I can only say your naivety is touching.

 

No it isn't. That is just a bald falsehood.

False. Many published and respected scientists have stated their skepticism towards anti-CO2 hysteria.

That is nothing but a groundless smear tactic. Disgraceful.

 

Not to mention prolific liars-for-hire James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt at NASA and NOAA.

 

No conspiracy is required by me, but a conspiracy theory seems to be required by you.

 

Yeah he keeps bringing it up yet none of us here in the thread is making the claim, only HE is.......

Notice that he hasn't once made a cogent reply in the thread?

 

That refers to elementary and high school teachers.

Like Ms. Perez, who told me she got her history degree and thought if she couldn't get a job in her major, then she'd teach, except she sucked because she's not really a teacher.

It took her 6 weeks to cover the US Civil War (something she fawns over) and the students learned nothing because all she did was make them memorize battles and dates of battles and generals and casualty figures for the battle and who won the battle, which is magnificent, but it is not teaching.

That was totally inappropriate (not to mention it bored the students to tears.)

I gave the students a list of vocabulary words from the "Emancipation Proclamation" plus the word "propaganda" and then gave them a quiz on it and then we discussed how it freed exactly ZERO slaves.

She didn't like that one bit. And the students were raising their hands and asking questions when we were discussing how the Tyrant Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, sent federal troops to put down protests and demonstrations by Abolitionists and violated the 1st Amendment by shutting down newspapers and imprisoning newspaper editors (without the benefit of habeas corpus.)

The students were real interested in that, but I stomped on her idol, so we had words and I got "fired" as a student teacher. That's when I figured out I'd never fit into the system and changed majors.

That's okay. I work in my field now when I feel like it so I might do two or three contracts a year with a government agency or NGO.

Anyway, any teacher who can't teach the US Civil War in 3 days should be fired.

 

Lincoln was America's worst president. And nobody comes close to how bad he was.
And you earned an A for teaching accurate history.

 

But he plans to read more.
Why is it that none of the alarmists can discuss clouds.

Remember the Earth has a cover of clouds. They never mention how that is a sign of climate.
As to CA fires some chirp about, if it was climate, the forests would break out in massive fires covering enormous areas rather than where lightning hits the forests. So how can climate create lightning fires?

 

Two remarkably silly posts.

 

Silly reply.

 

First of all, pretty much NONE of the papers Hays has cited have been reviewed by reputable reviewers and subsequently published. That is a KEY omission in how science works. Regardless of outcome, there HAS TO BE that kind of review.

Secondly, "scores" is a TINY NUMBER in this context.

 

I know that's what you think.

But, what I pointed to is something slightly different.

Many (pretty much all?) serious institutions are not going to give full professorships to those who don't publish.

If you aren't doing, they aren't going to have you teach.

Also, you can see from the papers Hays has cited that reputable universities DO include scientists whose papers do not appear to support the IPCC view - at least on initial inspection or according to press reporting.

 

This is absurdly hypothetical from start to finish.

I agree with the inelasticity part. But, from there you aren't showing anything that makes sense.

The last is especially absurd. The decision on those wars was distinctly ours. The issues of climate change and the scientists involved are global, NOT US.

And, I already pointed out that the issues of climate change cross almost all of the sciences. Trying to coordinate what scientists the world over are saying about their own fields could not possibly be coordinated or enforced in order to fake results that include all those fields.

First of all, it isn't even always clear what a particular result in some field of science might mean in terms of climate change - so, suggesting that a complete set of fake results could be defined is monumentally preposterous, even if you thought scientists in all fields the world over could be controlled.

There really is NO POSSIBILITY of such a conspiracy, just based on the impossibility of creating that set of coordinated results across all sciences - regardless of the other elements of a conspiracy that would have to be in perfect working order.

 

High school is VERY different from university. At the university level, the student is absolutely required to do more than sit there listening to somebody. Those wanting that don't belong in university.

I absolutely do NOT agree that the US Civil War is a 3 day issue when taught at any level from high school and beyond. There are just too many aspects. It may well be all the time that is allowed for that in high school, obviously. High school doesn't allow enough time in ANY field.

 

You present your deniers as being victims of organized opposition that has nothing to do with science.

That is what a conspiracy is, isn't it?

 

Bla bla bla, when are you ever going to stop making bogus arguments?

 

Hey, if my argument were bogus, you would have had an answer.

 

He explicitly stated that the opposition need not be organized to be effective.

Are you saying there has never been any such thing as a conspiracy, or merely that it is somehow impossible this time?

 

No it isn't. It's hypothetical, but there is nothing absurd about it.

It makes perfect sense.

No it isn't.

To whom, exactly, do you refer as the "us" that made that decision? AFAICT it was a handful of people around Bush.

American money and power totally dominate climate science, especially the faked NASA and NOAA temperature records.

Irrelevant. The fake temperature record is enough to falsify research in all related fields.

None of that is necessary. Just one fake record -- the global temperature record -- is enough to contaminate all related research in all fields, with no coordination or other fraud necessary.

Hence the obligatory genuflections to AGW scaremongering.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again. No such vast effort is needed. Control of the temperature record alone ensures all related research will be contaminated.

Not necessary, as already explained.

Garbage. Read, "Agents of Influence" by Henry Hemming, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins, or "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. They explain very clearly how just a handful of people at the fulcrums of power can secretly influence the whole world.

 

No, a world wide conspiracy with nobody even knowing why and near perfect coercion from scientists the world over and with no leaks is just plain preposterous.

Judging "this time" by looking at other times is fine with me. But, it doesn't change the fact that there can't be a conspiracy of the size of the world.

And, the idea that it could involve scientists from all over the world, scientists who have dedicated their lives to their science, being coerced into faking their science and lying about conclusions?? That just puts the frosting on the cake. You must SERIOUSLY hate science to tolerate that kind of BS.

 

I already stipulated that if such a conspiracy exists, it is nothing like what you claim it has to be.