Posted on 05/29/2011 7:17:16 AM PDT by RogerFGay
I was disappointed upon seeing a Global Warming “science” pitch recently published in Politico. Cold shoulder for climate change was written by sports writer turned outdoors, travel and entertainment reporter turned environmental journalist Darren Samuelsohn.I won't pick apart details of the entire article. It's based on the old propaganda template: warmers are scientists, skeptics are right-wing ideologues. No mention of the much larger number of professional scientists and engineers who have gone from skeptical to calling the whole thing a fraud. In Samuelsohn's world, warmers and their climate theories have been “exonerated” and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is slated to rise in public status again.
Sameulsohn's background – about as far from scientifically educated as possible – is rather typical for environmental journalists. The rank and file tend to drive the ad nauseam element of Global Warming Propaganda - the endless repetition of an idea in the hope that it will begin to be taken as the truth. What else are they qualified to do? We can kind-of understand this serving up of a previous season's warmed over nonsense by someone without enough knowledge to be embarrassed by it. It's a living, right?
So I doubt he had a clue that his article contained one of the most basic bits of evidence that the global warming scare is a complete fraud and the IPCC is a scam.
“We need to equip ourselves with the ability and capacity to deal with the heightened scrutiny … which we have been subjected to recently,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this month during a conference in Abu Dhabi.Warmers tend to think of science as magic. Chant the word “science” enough and a cow pie should become the Mona Lisa if that's what you say it is. But what is it about (real) science that implies such overwhelming credibility? If your answer is “the scientific process” then congratulations; you're light-years ahead of environmental journalism.Scientific process: If you're asking, “What's that?” then let me give you a hint. Skepticism and scrutiny are essential to the process. If ideas are not exposed and tested with skepticism and scrutiny, it isn't science. A “skeptic” is the the more likely scientist than the “open-minded” unskeptical believer. The mere fact that a Nobel Peace Prize recipient says something doesn't make it true. That an article is “published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal” does not make everything in it true either. Publications communicate ideas, which are then subject to skepticism and scrutiny. That's scientific process.
The word of a “scientific committee” cannot be presumed truth. The so-called “scientific consensus” on global warming is meaningless (and still would be even if it actually did favor their argument as they insist). A good example of scientific perspective on such things is illustrated by Einstein's response to a 1931 pamphlet entitled “100 authors against Einstein.” The pamphlet was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to Relativity Theory that did not fit the canons of the “Aryan science.” Similarly, the IPCC and modern leftist political operatives define acceptable scientific views to conform with a political and economic agenda and support it with a claim of a consensus view. Einstein’s answer; “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”
Scientific fact is not determined by appointments and elections. It didn't matter how many Nazi supporters lined up against him or how strong their influence on public discussion. Nor does the past few decades of political influence through biased funding and its impact on the number of scientific journal articles determine the truth about global warming. Science is not conducted by committee and certainly not by political appointees in an intergovernmental panel.
What IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri reveals in his statement is that scrutiny has been missing from the IPCC process – something many of us “skeptics” already knew. The IPCC was established in 1988. That makes 23 years of non-science. The problem isn't confined to United Nations' activities and their reports that warmers treat as the bible of climate “science.” It's found throughout the entire chain of “climate science” activities and it's been intentional and systematic. (That's also an important part of what was exposed to the general public through Climategate.) “Science” is the basis of their claim of credibility, and it's the one thing they've avoided doing.
Some of the warmers have Ph.D.s. In fact, there are plenty of them, and they understand all this too. The global warming scam isn't just the product of uneducated sports writers trying to make a living. It is a fraud. Science is something done by scientists. But who is a scientist and who is not, is not determined by who holds what scientific degrees. Degrees don't make scientists. Scientists are people who actually do science. Having made claims to scientifically established facts without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific process is a fraud to. The people who do it ar not scientists. They are frauds too.
Part and parcel of the Liberal mindset, in this and all other cases - any evidence that comes along and refutes a pet theory, just ignore it and make believe it doesn’t exist.
AGW ping?
The Left's insidious propaganda machine relies on more than just the propagation of false information. They reinforce their repititious message with outrageous fear tactics and emotional appeals (If you don't believe what we're telling you, you'll destroy the planet and you're an enemy of mankind and all that is good).
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
Nice explanation of why the Global Warming types get so angry when we ask questions and want to examine their data, models and assumptions.
Right. It is conducted by overweight filmakers and former politicians, and executed by czars.
I’d like to know how many of the “scientists” in favor of AGW actually did any study whatsoever on the subject. Doubtless, many did some superficial reading of the conclusions made by the warmists and agreed on political grounds.
Here in my little Northern California hamlet, we should've had steady temperatures above 90 during the day with lows in the 60s at night.
Instead we've had nothing but highs in the upper 60s to mid 70s (with an occassional 80 and I think one 90 so far) and lows in the upper 40s and rain out the wazoo.
Don't get me wrong. I'm loving it! I work outside for the most part and usually by this time of year I'm already kicking myself for lying about finding another job by this time of year.
If this is Global Warming, I'm all for it.
Thanks RogerFGay.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
ala Baghdad Bob.
Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science - J. R. Dunn
The "scientists" who perpetrated the global warming fraud approached their science in exactly the opposite manner as the approach described above. They formulated a theory based on political ideology (as well as the path of least resistance to "grant" money) and then did whatever they had to do with their data to "prove" it.
What the world has now seen with the expose of the "global warming" scam puts a new spin on the old saying: "Figures can lie and liars can figure." The discipline of science has taken a massive hit over the past few months and it could take years for science - - and scientists - - to regain credibility with the public. A lot of that burden must fall on honest scientists, and the first and most important thing they must do is scream for the heads of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and the rest of the fraudsters. I guess we'll see if they have the integrity to do it.
ping
Samuel Adams
What is "science" to the warmists? It is consensus.
Science is not conducted by committee and certainly not by political appointees in an intergovernmental panel.LOL!
Right. It is conducted by overweight filmakers and former politicians, and executed by czars.
I’d like to know how many of the “scientists” in favor of AGW actually did any study whatsoever on the subject. Doubtless, many did some superficial reading of the conclusions made by the warmists and agreed on political grounMany of the "peer-reviewed studies" start by stating they're investigating effects of global warming on something in their area of research. They quote from the funding offer, the characterization of the effect they're supposed to have. They then do their unrelated research and say "see there" - must have been what I saw happened because of global warming, just like it said in the funding solicitation - "send more money."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
