web analytics

How’s That Consensus Holding Up?

By ATWadmin On January 28th, 2009

STILL crumbling, situation deteriorating.

I do wonder; when will we pass the tipping point and be able to state that a majority of scientists disagree with the AGW theory? At this rate, that moment cannot be far off. Via Watts Up With That, EU Referendum has the summary of the latest blow to the cause (my emphasis):

First published by the Senate EPW blog prop. Jame Inhofe, this has it that James Hansen’s former NASA supervisor has declared himself a sceptic. Hansen, he says, has “embarrassed NASA” and “was never muzzled”, although he should have been.

Our current hero is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr John S Theon. As Hansen’s former supervisor, he joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on 15 January 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results.”

“Hansen,” he says, “was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it).” He thus embarrassed NASA “by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Theon is also declaring “climate models are useless.” His own belief concerning AGW is that “the models do not realistically simulate the climate system.” There are many very important “sub-grid scale processes” that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.

“Furthermore,” he says, “some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.” Theon also charges that these scientists “have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.”

This, he adds, “is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

With Jim Hansen being al-Gore’s closest ally and the source of the data on which he relies, if there was any justice in this world, Gore would be well and truly stuffed. The “global warming” gravy train, however, has gained such a head of steam that it is going to take some stopping. But the writing is on the wall.

Oh the writing’s on the wall alright! Despite a decades-long, global propaganda campaign waged by political elites of unlimited resources, public opinion remains dubious at best. The high point of the campaign has come and gone, the future will bring evidence only that we have lived through the greatest of scientific scams.

On the day of reckoning, when the facade finally crumbles into dust and all who propped it up are left exposed for the fools and liars they undoubtedly are, every politician who ever invoked AGW to take a Pound or a Dollar from a taxpayer will – God willing – be charged with Misfeasance.

46 Responses to “How’s That Consensus Holding Up?”

  1. I do wonder; when will we pass the tipping point and be able to state that a majority of scientists disagree with the AGW theory?

    Until then though, you will support the current majority I assume.

    joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

    The fears are not the science. Try to make the distinction.

  2. DT –

    The fears are the point of the faux science. In any case, that statement clearly isn’t mine but is within the excerpt – duh.

  3. "I do wonder; when will we pass the tipping point and be able to state that a majority of scientists disagree with the AGW theory? "

    Perhaps if that day dawns you won’t need to scrape together some unsupported statements and vague accusations from scientists that retired in 1994 in order to make up the numbers.

  4. I suspect Pete passed the tipping point some considerable time ago.

  5. "The high point of the campaign has come and gone, the future will bring evidence only that we have lived through the greatest of scientific scams."

    References to global warming as a scam or a hoax are conspiracy theories. It is possible that global warming turns out to be a mistaken theory but the idea of thousands of scientists plotting to trick the public and politicians is absurd and requires a level of coordination on a massive scale.

    As with 9/11 conspiracies the question is why havn’t any of the thousands of people who would have to be involved in order to carry out such a scam come clean?

  6. You must be in on it too.

  7. Ross,

    Indeed. And why is much of the animal and plant kingdom in on it?

    Surely one of these ‘sceptics’ could manage to get a parrot, say, to talk?

  8. Ross

    Well said. I agree 100%.

    Frank

    As you have previously suggested, the argument will be settled within the next few years, one way or the other. Mind you, there are some still out there who still think that Darwin was wrong…

  9. Thank Heavens , at last the real scientists are standing up to be counted , and the " whores of science " revealed as the charlatans that they are .

  10. References to global warming as a scam or a hoax are conspiracy theories.

    Well, not really.

    the idea of thousands of scientists plotting to trick the public and politicians is absurd

    Of course it is. I wouldn’t trust most scientists to do up their shoelaces properly, but then no-one is suggesting a mass plot. It’s more a combination of professional intimidation and moral and financial corruption than anything else.

  11. Pete

    The conspiracy theory is that tenured grant-hungry scientists are de-facto in league with tax-hungry politicians who see AGW inspired carbon taxes as a way to facilitate a massive state power-grab.

    I belive that you may have endorsed this theory yourself on this very forum, but please correct me if I am mistaken.

  12. You are mistaken. There are some compromised grant-hungry scientists and very many tax-hungry politicians who see AGW inspired carbon taxes as a way to facilitate a massive state power-grab. The question is the nature of the relationship between the two. But it’s not really correct to say they are in league with each other, although that may be dependent on how you interprest the term. More accurately the relationship is one of pimp and whore, pusher and junkie.

  13. Frank you have never posted a single piece of evidence that can be prove man is causing global warming.

    You have posted hyperboyle and non-proven theories that can’t be reapeated with the same answer twice

  14. Pete

    Just to be clear –

    Are you are saying that most of the AGW-supporting climate scientists are deliberately slanting the results of their research work for grants?

  15. I’m saying that many are … delivering what their paymasters are buying.

  16. I second that – the piper pays their tune. Tenured whores.

    (Back from business trip to London, exhausted!)

  17. "I’m saying that many are … delivering what their paymasters are buying."

    Including scientists dead for over a century.

    Also including bird, butterflies and vegetation who are playing along with all of it for reasons not made clear by Pete.

    And of course the ice – it is unclear whether it is melting because it is intimidated or fears loss of its research post, but no doubt it will be one of those.

  18. Frank

    And of course the ice – it is unclear whether it is melting because it is intimidated or fears loss of its research post, but no doubt it will be one of those.

    All Ice measurements last year both north an south showed growth not decline

  19. Oh the butterflies and birds Alright post the data and the source that show global warming has effected them

  20. Troll,

    "All Ice measurements last year both north an south showed growth not decline"

    Global ice has been in decline for decades.

    Just in the last week or so the arctic ice extent dipped below 2007 levels (2007 was the year of the record low) – while the know nothings were yammering about how the world is in a cooling trend.

  21. Frank O’Dwyer –

    As Troll says, it’s been a period of growth for ice recently, unlike socialist Britain.

    As for the birds and butterflies and pretty little fluffy things, when was life on Earth ever unchanging, never in flux? Come on, a rubbish argument.

  22. As Troll says, it’s been a period of growth for ice recently…

    Yeah, the last year or so. But the ice was retreating for the previous coupla decades before that.

    So I’d have to say that’s a rubbish argument Pete.

  23. Pete,

    "As Troll says, it’s been a period of growth for ice recently"

    Only if by recently you mean winter or something equally silly.

    But if you mean something less self-serving, not so much.

    "As for the birds and butterflies and pretty little fluffy things, when was life on Earth ever unchanging, never in flux? Come on, a rubbish argument."

    Not as rubbish as ‘things have always changed, so we can’t cause changes’, which is the general form of your argument, and is demonstrably false. If you don’t believe this, try jumping in front of a bus and see what changes for you. Don’t forget – life on earth is always in flux so it can’t hurt you.

    Troll,

    "Oh the butterflies and birds Alright post the data and the source that show global warming has effected them"

    let me google that for you

  24. "Tenured whores"

    Now there’s a phrase. It may apply to some of the AGW scientists. We will know in a few years if that’s right or wrong.

    But we know now that it sure as hell applies to the cheerleaders of the deregulation of financial markets in the past twenty years. Bond-markets, stock markets, hedge-funds, financial journalists, rightworld political pundits, rightworld politicians – tenured whores the lot of them – pumping a bubble in the name of free markets and unfettered capitalism, on the make and on the take.

    And some of them are still at it.

  25. I don’t doubt that there are some scientists who would tweak their results in order to maintain their grants but even so there are always thousands of ambitious scientists. If the theory was really just a scam, so flimsy that plenty of non-scientists can poke holes in it, then one of them would seek to make their name by puncturing the consensus.

    All sorts of scientific theories have been completely entrenched for decades, but when someone come up with an alternative theory that fits the evidence better then the accepted consensus is overturned in just a few years. Evolution, relativity, quantum theory and plate tectonics were all theories that radically undermined the prevailing ideas of the day yet all were generally accepted within a couple of decades of being proposed. That’s how science works, even if many individual scientists have a vested interest in the status quo, a new theory that explains the evidence better will supercede it.

    And if it was just a case of cowardice on the part of scientists, why do many those who have incurred the wrath of environmentalist for their willingness to challenge the shiibboleths of the movement, like Bjorn Lomborg for instance, accept that the evidence suggests that man made global warming is genuine?

  26. Ross –

    Your question is misplaced. More pertinent is to ask, if the point isn’t to raise fear and provide the intellectual case for ever rising taxes and state explansion, why are those who agree with AGW (such as Lomborg) yet dismiss fashionable statist remedies, the target of such abuse?

    It’s clear that accepting the AGW theory is insufficient to guarantee a polite reception. You must also promote the big-government, big-tax solutions.

  27. Pete,

    Lomborg dismisses any remedy. And has also made some numerous bogus claims. That’s why.

  28. Pete Moore

    Lomberg’s argument is that climate change is not our most immediate environmental priority. I would agree with him on that, even if I bought AGW 100%, which I don’t.

    The elephant in the room (which Lomberg is too pc to tackle head on) is the human population of this planet, which is out of control and which will dwarf all other issues well before the end of this century.

  29. Peter,

    "The elephant in the room (which Lomberg is too pc to tackle head on) is the human population of this planet, which is out of control and which will dwarf all other issues well before the end of this century."

    The two issues cannot be separated. Each makes the other worse.

  30. right so we need to continue to abort 3000 babies a day in the US and now thanks to Obama provide the funds and clinics in other nations to do the same,

  31. and before it is said I am prochoice, but that doesn’t mean I agree with the choice

  32. IMO, it’s the height of irresponsibility to ignore evidence like this just for the sake of political tribalism.

  33. Link not working, how about

    this

    or
    this

    or

    this.

  34. As with 9/11 conspiracies the question is why havn’t any of the thousands of people who would have to be involved in order to carry out such a scam come clean?

    Why would it take thousands? It could be done exactly as shown, but the hijackers didnt know they were infact ultimately working for a few ‘state’ actors. This is a genuine possibility considering that some of the hijackers were effectively sheilded from investigation before their mission was completed.
    And it doesnt need to be a massive active conspiracy either, with end to end planning. All the actors may have been genuine and the state elements merely need to provide enough time to allow the mission to be successful. This can be argued with the large amount of military exercises on the day of the attack, shifting air power away from the affected area and causing massive disruption on the domestic air traffic system. All those can be planned by normal channels with no knowledge of any genuine attacks. Remember, at least one of the exercises on that day involved hijacked planes, with radar injects on actual ATC screens. (Cave dwelling terrorists couldnt have picked a better day)

    You dont need dummy aircraft or controlled demolitions to show the possibility of state involvement. And it can all be done with only the full knowledge of very few people, as all of the above can still be carried out with no comprehension of the actual operation.

  35. DT

    Lyndon Larouche, George Soros and the Queen of England were involved in this. Trust me. They guy in the candy store told me this.

  36. Question for you Phantom. Historically, has the USA ever used false-flag terrorism before?

  37. Sure.

    Iran back in the 1950s.

  38. Historically, has it ever been considered, under any circumstance, domestically in the USA?

  39. DT

    If you want to say something, say it. Enough with the 20 questions

    The WTC theories are absurd mockeries of reasoning, analogous to the Flying Saucer theories of late night radio.

  40. Obama is the Poster child of the Pro-Life Movement.

  41. If you want to say something, say it. Enough with the 20 questions

    Actually its two (soon to be three), according to my estimates. I do though have something to say, but it requires an answer to a few simple questions thats all.

    If you are unwilling or unable to answer I dont mind.

  42. Say what you wish to say, amigo

  43. All im trying to convey is that the notion is not as ridiculous as it is portrayed. Sure there are many wild theories about 9/11, nobody can dispute that. But the basic theory of a false flag operation is not ridiculous.

    It has been used many times by the USA and has known to be proposed at least once in the domestic sphere (Operation Northwoods).

    You dont need energy beams, UFOs, drone aircraft or controlled demolitions to demonstrate this as a very real possibility. A possibility that I personally find more plausible than the official theory, especially when considered along with a wider context (preceding events and subsequent wars).

  44. I can see a country doing False Flag against another nation.

    But I do not see anyone doing such a public crime, against their own or another nation, and to have it remain a secret. There are very few secrets that remain secrets for long – someone involved would tell due to a guilty conscience or a slip, etc.

    Plus I don’t see anyone being that evil – to kill 50,000 ( which was Al Queda’s goal ) of their own citizens in pursuit of some objective. Does not compute.

    I heard some of the same thing against the Russians when someone ( possibly Chechens ) blew up inhabited apartment buildings in Moscow. Some accused the Russians and Putin of doing that in order to create anger against the Chechens.

    I absolutely did not believe that. I don’t buy that he or his henchmen, however bad, would do that to their own people, in their own capital city. That would have been an act of treason against people he was responsible for.

  45. From the article:

    "I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor "

    When I read that first I knew that ‘in effect’ translated as ‘not really’.

    And so it proves.

    It seems that these deniers can’t help puffing up their claims to mislead, as the facts don’t really help their case as much.

  46. I don’t buy that he or his henchmen, however bad, would do that to their own people, in their own capital city.

    Thats sometimes the hardest part to comprehend, but it can also be brutally simple to ‘justify’. The state functions greatly in abstract terms. I dont think it takes particularly much for state or para-state actors to convince themselves that certain losses constitute a near-necessity for some greater good. This notion is multiplied many times over in the military (and intelligence) realm, where most actions have many layers of abstraction and where individuals, units or even formations can become completely expendable. Now combine both*.

    Plus I don’t see anyone being that evil – to kill 50,000 ( which was Al Queda’s goal ) of their own citizens in pursuit of some objective. Does not compute.

    History tells us otherwise. But remember, large numbers of people are not required to have full knowledge of the entire operation for it to be a success (history and human nature indicates the exact opposite), and they can still perform valid functions. Such as picking somebody up at an airport or ensuring no problems at customs. Very few ‘shoulder the burden’ of knowing just what the implications of success are**.

    I heard some of the same thing against the Russians when someone ( possibly Chechens ) blew up inhabited apartment buildings in Moscow. Some accused the Russians and Putin of doing that in order to create anger against the Chechens.

    There is a great documentary on this subject, and a quick search found two others. Though i could not locate the one I watched (It may be "Assassination of Russia"). It was a big enough issue to hit prime time Russian television. The short of it being that several people were caught red handed in the act of planting explosives and they werent Chechens. The Russian state proceeded to make a pigs ear of a cover up, that the locals werent buying for a second. The highlight being a TV debate show with apartment resident witnesses and a head of the FSB. Compelling television.

    I absolutely did not believe that.

    Unfortunately, I think its all too believable. Which is bleak. Still, thanks for being open enough to discuss this issue without resorting to total blitzkrieg.

    * One of the many reasons why military governments are so dysfunctional when dealing with civilian populations.
    ** Often referred to as the ‘gangster state’ or ‘state gangsterism’, due to the functional similarities with organised crime. I personally prefer Peter Dale Scotts term the ‘Deep-State’.