Fake Climate Science and Scientists

Townhall.com ^ | April 27, 2019 | Paul Driessen

[Kaslin]

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system – all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained actual scientists don’t do. Just as bad, they’re ignoring fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. they’re looking only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes.

Even more outrageous, they’re using their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now – or we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate – or an intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” – and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd whip out the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” – while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Actual average global temperatures are now 1 degree F below model predictions.

Instead of fearing it, we should thank rising CO2 for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity – especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.) 

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs– in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. 

The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their totalitarian experiments.

[Kaslin]

As far as I am concerned Scientist know $hit

[aberaussie]

bttt

[zaxtres]

They know nuthin’, John Snow.

[sauropod]

Yep

[EEGator]

Are you the redhead chick?

[JudgemAll]

With Climate Change, the left is practicing a secular version of the islamic takfirism. It is a cultural appropriation of science by a bunch of women studies dykes who think getting short hairs, tattoos and a bitch bully attitude is what makes a man , culturally appropriating with make up artistry what men have build with blood, sweat and tears (roads, lights and war responsibility when the irresponsible let themselves shipped to Auschwitz or islamic harems).

Basically, much like the takfiries accusing Christians and jews of being Bible apostates, deserving death as only the Koranic way of celebrating Easter and Passover is approved and not apostate, our secular climate takfirie would burn at the stake a real scientist for not worshipping their dogma the correct way, one they appropriated in guerrilla warfare through intimidation.

This sheer intimidation means scientists, who would not have the ability to defend science as they would a belief, but simply abandon it or get fired, would end up growing in the ranks of the left out of fear of mere loss of job or government funding, the rest would be burned at the stake if opposing the coming takfiri leftist genocide.

[zaxtres]

NO but the redhead chick screwed you too.

[Dutch Boy]

We are under siege from global warming now. It’s been snowing east of Rochester NY most of the morning. That’s a sure sign we are all going to burn up from the heat due to run away warming. Doomed, doomed I tell you.

[Fred Hayek]

This so called science is really a pagan religion, with the State as its diety. Lysenko and Stalin are laughing in Hell.

[JPJones]

“They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work.”

When your “adjusted” data tells the opposite story of the raw data...well...

...it ain’t science.

[Louis Foxwell]

When science becomes settled it ceases to be science and becomes dogma.

[Agatsu77]

I used to work doing explosive hydrodynamic testing. Once after a shot the new test physicist was looking at an image of the simulation and the x-ray of the actual explosive compression and ask while pointing at the x-ray “why doesn’t it look right.
The test engineer pointed at the x-ray and said “That one is real, the other one is just a bad cartoon.”
The bitch tried to get him fired. She was never allowed back in the bunker.

[VideoPaul]

Climate change, huh? Global warning, huh? Then explain to my why the national weather service just issued a winter storm WARNING for Chicago...on APRIL 27th???

[clearcarbon]

"Even more outrageous, they’re using their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now – or we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet."

Can't lose. If the carbon dioxide is reduced and the unprecedented cataclysms don't occur, they will credit themselves for the reductions. However, if even one minor cataclysm occurs than it will be because of something else that affected the climate, like the failure to pay enough reparations or the existence of racist statues.

[palmer]

Driessen is spot-on. He argues correctly that manmade CO2 is irrelevant. Some commenters here believe this incorrect diagram:

It's true that water vapor is about 2% of the atmosphere. But it is uneven so it's actual greenhouse effect is less than the evenly spread out gases. CO2 is 0.04% so there should be be just 2 yelliow-colored blocks out of the 100. But about 1/3 of those 2 blocks should be red signifying manmade. The claim that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity is simply false. It compares manmade emissions (and equivalents like deforestation) to natural emissions. But it ignores natural uptake which is roughly the same as natural emissions. Essentially they are comparing the small manmade rise to the large natural flux:

The natural flux is much larger than the seasonal sinusoid shown above because there are natural emissions and natural uptake that coincide and don't contribute to the seasonal swing. But at the very least that chart shows that the natural variation in CO2 up and down is a lot higher than the manmade variation which is all up. That secular rise is (now) completely manmade (used to be partly natural from warming following the Little Ice Age)

And Driessen is spot-on about the effects. There is no increase in extreme weather. He is correct that strong to violent tornadoes are decreasing. Last year 2018 was the first on record in over a century of records without an EF-4 or EF-5 tornado. It is likely that "extreme" weather will decrease with a few minor exceptions.

[mjp]

Manipulated data +
manipulated sensors +
computer models and programs purposely designed to prove global warming is real +
evasion of counter examples + rejection of falsification +
socialism and statism motivation = fake science & pseudoscience

[FamiliarFace]

You mean fake scientists, right? Real scientists are given a bad name because of all the fakery out there. Real scientists take a lot of c*** from fake scientists.

[golux]

BUMP!

[FamiliarFace]

“Why doesn’t it look right?”

That’s priceless.

[ronnie raygun]

When your bread and butter, funding is given by the government you march lockstep with their narrative