The slick trick behind global frauding

American Thinker ^ | April 09, 2008 | James Lewis

[neverdem]

In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.

That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science.

In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil.   Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.

Stalin twisted scientific biology over four decades in the Soviet Union. His favorite fake-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, used all the powers of the police state to enforce his batty belief that the bleeding disaster of Soviet agriculture could be fixed just by making plants grow bigger. It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great race horse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding.

But breeding takes time, and Stalin was in a hurry. So he fell for the Lysenko fraud, and flipped the burden of proof: Any Soviet biologist who disagreed with Lysenko was shot. This went on for forty years, and caused endless suffering as one harvest after the next crashed. People died by the millions, in part because biological science was fundamentally corrupted.

Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science. It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils.  If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything.

In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics.  The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are still being tested today.  His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before his work was accepted. Darwin said the same thing.

A healthy scientific community is extremely skeptical. It needs to see more and more evidence, over and over and over again, before it adopts some wild-eyed new idea. It takes all the time it needs; good science is very patient. Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics, and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)

"Catastrophic global warming," caused by human beings, is a really wild-eyed idea, given the fact that animals have survived on earth for half a billion years, with thousands of massive volcanic explosions, giant meteors hitting the earth, drifting continents, and great biomass changes that would have perturbed the climate, if the hypothesis were true. Just imagine the amount of C0² that must have been released with the Cambrian explosion of animal life. If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature, no animals could have survived those 500 million years. The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today. Animals and plants are able adapt to temperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert.

In biology, "catastrophism" has been treated with intense skepticism since Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Except today, when biological catastrophism is the in thing. Why would that be, do you suppose? 

How have Al Gore and the fraudsters pulled it off? It's really simple. They just flipped the burden of proof and put it on the "deniers" --- the skeptics, who don't believe the computer models. With the Left in control of the media, you can do it.

So now it's prove to me you're not a witch! Because there is no decisive evidence. There are 21 computer models that "prove" global warming over the next century. By the time 2050 rolls around, most of the modelers will be dead.

To answer the biggest con trick in the history of science, you just have to address a single question to True Believers:  What's your evidence for this barmy idea? (Not: Here's my evidence against it. That's not how it works).

And the answer is: There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass  hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There's a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers. Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody.  When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We're not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.

The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming.  

Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun is the logical suspect.

Look it up. But don't get caught in the trap of proving the negative. In normal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof. 

Now can we talk about 9/11? That's a fact. But Al Gore doesn't think it's a big deal, compared to his favorite science fiction story. Al Gore just wants power, fame, money, and the US Presidency. Well, three out of four ain't bad.

Oliver Cromwell and his witchhunters would have understood  perfectly.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

[neverdem]

Accuse someone of Lysenkoism today, and they would look at you like you had two heads.

[Lazamataz]

But according to you, the question is settled.

[RightWhale]

In some countries having two heads makes you a god.

[steelyourfaith]

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[edzo4]

just remember a gulfstream jet holds 41000 lbs of fuel
1 gallon of fuel weighs about 6 lbs
41,000 lbs / 6 lbs per gallon = 6833 gallons of fuel
average car gets 20 mpg
20 mpg x 6833 gallons = 136660 miles

the earth is about 25000 miles around

136660 miles/ 25000 miles = 5.46

so 1 fill up of fuel for al gore to fly around telling us to use less fossil fuels burns enough fossil fuel to drive my car around the world more than 5 times

effing hypocrite

[jpl]

As we all now know, the real point of this entire ridiculous con job is so Al Gore and his cronies can make massive amounts of money swindling Hollywood idiots and other rich leftists in a bizarre global "carbon credit" trading scheme.

Ponzi had nothing on this guy.

[cogitator]

But according to you, the question is settled.

I don't appreciate goading. Saying "the science is settled" and then ridiculing that position indicates a significant misunderstanding of how the scientific process converges toward an accurate characterization of the physical mechanisms which produce the reality of observations.

As a case example, examine how the science became "settled" regarding the current state of the theory of plate tectonics.

[cogitator]

And by the way — this article shows the same level of misunderstanding.

[Lazamataz]

I have two heads.

[Lazamataz]

I just hope your kind doesn’t destroy the economy in a misguided effort to ‘save the world’, which neither asked for, nor needs, your ‘saving’.

[workerbee]

Good read. A related post: Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled

[chrisser]

You may find the article in this thread interesting, if you haven’t seen it already.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999066/posts

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link. Global warming means Garbage in, Gospel out. It requires a "willing suspension of disbelief."

[cogitator]

I just hope your kind doesn’t destroy the economy in a misguided effort to ‘save the world’, which neither asked for, nor needs, your ‘saving’.

Though I'm probably not very similar to the kind of person that you think are "my kind" (I truly dislike blanket generalizations), I agree, I hope that nobody destroys the global economy in a misguided effort to save the world.

Let me ask something. If too many people try to use a limited resource, what usually happens to the resource? (Current applicable example: many different fish stocks).

[Lazamataz]

Let me ask something. If too many people try to use a limited resource, what usually happens to the resource? (Current applicable example: many different fish stocks).

I need proof -- or at least solid evidence -- the resource is limited, first.

[cogitator]

It’s a theoretical question: the assumption is that the resource IS limited.

[syriacus]

Great column — an eye opener. Helps provide an exit from the trap liberalism has placed on non-liberals.

[syriacus]

Bookmarked. Thanks.

[metesky]

I have two heads.

Yup, and you've got to stop slapping the little one around so much. That warning about going blind and all...

[LeGrande]

Mellow a little why don’t you. We need more people like cogitator here on FR. He has a very good grasp of the Climate Crises issue from the alarmist perspective and for a good discussion it is important to have opposing points of view.

Cogitator has performed a very valuable service for us freepers over the years and we shouldn’t forget that. Especially now that we just might be getting the evidence we need to prove that Global warming is not accelerating.