About a hundred years ago, a small town put science and religion on trial. The trial was the Scopes Trial and while Religion and William Jennings Bryan won the case, the victory was hollow and empty, as in the court of public opinion, old time religion was mocked out of existence. Over the past few weeks, Climate Science was put on trial and while Michael Mann and big science had an affirming verdict, the big losers were truth and the right we Americans have to speak our mind and criticize our “betters.” The verdict was a bad day for Mark Steyn and even worse for the First Amendment, the ability to speak truth and the United States.
I don’t have Netflix or even a TV, so I haven’t seen Stranger Things other than some ads on You Tube. This post turned up and I thought that I would share my experiences working at a DOE National lab. The author of the post is a little retrained so I thought that I would liven things up.
The big linear accelerator at SLAC is upgrading. The interesting thing is that they are using technology that I’m familiar with, the superconducting radiocavity. These cavities were first used at Jefferson Lab in Virginia where I worked for two years. They actually a very interesting use of extreme cryogenics, high intensity microwaves and exotic materials and mechanical technologies.
Climate Feedback works like this: Using the new web-annotation platform Hypothesis, scientists verify facts and annotate online climate articles, layering their insights and comments on top of the original story. They then issue a “5-star” rating so readers can quickly judge stories’ scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets; earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is only a hint of what Climate Feedback has in store as it begins to aggregate those credibility scores into a wider index, rating major news sources on their reporting of climate change as part of a new Scientific Trust Tracker.
To that end, Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27 around the hashtag #StandWithScience, supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and others. I invite you to take a look at this sneak preview of our campaign (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). The Exxon climate scandal has already made its way into the 2016 election season, but few have discussed the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change, which has long confused the public and undermined political support for dealing with the issue. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben said of Climate Feedback: Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.
The site is already active with some feedbacks already
The pro AGW articles get good scores and skeptical articles get downchecked.
If nothing else it shows how politicized other sciences other than climatology are. Considering that these people are scientists, or at least sitting scientist positions, one would think that data would override opinion. But looking at the comments, I see more personal attacks and unsupported opinions than I see any real data.
This is not atypical from the climate crowd. Rather than present scientific arguments the climate crowd insists on attacking strawmen, smearing the other side and changing the subject when pressed. What noticeably absent is references to real science that has data and experiments to back up their hypotheses. You can predict all you want, but, in the end, for you to be actually doing science and not acting like a cult, the predictions must fit the data collected.
It’s pretty obvious that, when it comes to climate, the data hasn’t gone the same way as the predictions made by the computer models. In real science the knowledge that a model doesn’t fit the data means that you need new models. In climate science it means that you persecute the people pointing out that the models aren’t working.
That’s because like all romantics the climate crowd wants reality to be what they say it is, not what it really is. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are more polar bears than ever, the ice hasn’t gone away in the arctic and it’s cold today in early May. None of which has any relevance to climate, but that never stops the climate cultists. but their climate cargo cult only continues to exist because it’s useful to those who want still more power over everybody’s life.
From the beginning the environmental movement has been a mishmash of cargo cult science sounding stuff, romantic idealism and an attempt to revive dead ideologies with a new focus. The cultish aspect of CAGW can be seen by the desperate need to suppress any opposing viewpoints. Add to that the desire of many to use climate science as an excuse to obtain vast powers and wealth from the rest of us through rent seeking on a truly massive scale and this isn’t science, it’s tyranny.
Real science doesn’t need webpages like climate feedback. Real science can stand on it’s own and indeed invites dissension and healthy skepticism. That’s because real science isn’t an end it’s a journey and no matter how well thought a theory is it can still be found wrong by new data.
Here’s Richard Feynman about how science works.
If the guess, no matter how beautiful it seems, doesn’t match observed data it’s wrong. Well the climate models do not fir the known data. Sanity and science would say that that means that they are wrong, end of story. As far as the climate feedback types are concerned that means that the data is wrong simply because you are attacking the cult’s precepts. The consequences of their behavior are devastating for science, policy and millions of individuals who are the victims of the policies enacted as result of the climate cult’s actions and the rent seeking control freaks who use them. I stand with science, not the actions of a greedy misguided cult.
Never heard of Maurice Strong? Well that’s no surprise, very few people have. But they’ve felt his influence across the globe for the last forty years or so. He’s been the power behind the throne for most of the green agenda, topping off with the UN’s Agenda 21. Now that he is gone perhaps we start to see sanity return. Or not.
The story that continues to pushed under the rug. The thing about climate science is that unless it cleans up it’s act, it will destroy any integrity the discipline has and there will be splashing all over other science disciplines who have repeated and magnified the falsehoods and cargo cult science that the climategate clowns have done.
It is time to revisit the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. The first 1000 emails were released in November 2009 just prior to the Climate Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 scheduled for Copenhagen. They effectively stopped political plans for a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol, a massive redistribution of wealth designed as part of Agenda 21. You can read what the UN says about this plan developed under the auspices of Maurice Strong as head of the United Nations Environment Progam (UNEP) or read Glenn Becks interpretation of the implications.
Here is a sampling:
Thanks to Tom Nelson for this compendium.
We need to remind people of the revelations to undermine the completely unnecessary and unjustified plans scheduled for the upcoming Paris Climate Conference (COP21). The person who released the emails is now apparently safe from prosecution because…
The problem was that the climate team didn’t understand that the most important in science is transparency. Without transparency and sharing of data there can be no trust. Trust and verification is the key to science. Once you lose that, and the climate team has, you are just expressing opinions of no value and no credibility.
Summary: This, my 305th post about climate, explains what I’ve learned so far. I believe that climate science as an institution has become dysfunctional; large elements of the public no longer trust it. The politics of climate change are polarized and gridlocked. The weather will determine the evolution of US public policy. All we can do is learn what went wrong so we can do better next time, and wait to see the price we pay for our folly.
Scientists tell the UN about the coming disaster in “When Worlds Collide” (1951)
Contents
Why doesn’t America lead the fight against climate change?
How do scientists alert the world to a catastrophic threat?
Case study: the pause.
The most incompetently conducted media campaign ever?
The problem is that those companies are spending money that does not belong to them. It’s not the companies’ role to go along with whatever government fad that comes along. This is 140 billion that the investors in those companies, will by and large not receive any return on. Goldman Sachs and BOA have a fiduciary duty to their stockholder to not make loans that, based on experience, will not be good ones on things that have in the past turned out to be very bad investments. Companies like Walmart and PepsiCo have an obligation to keep their supply chains as efficient as possible, not waste money chasing government fad, no matter what they may be. What this amounts to is a huge protection payoff to the Green lobby and the Administration at the expense of the stockholders and customers of those companies who will be left with the tab. It’s bad business and an opening to further corrupt and dysfunctional business practices. http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-to-pledge-140-billion-in-efforts-to-cut-carbon-emissions-1437950378#livefyre-comment
Established 2006 - 100+ NEW posts every year: Movie Locations, B-Grade Sights, Cycling Trips, Travel, Films, Railways, Foxes, Star Wars, J-League, Dining Out, Sport, LCFC.......
The Arts Mechanical 