I don’t disagree with you and I think you get it, just the way you worded it initially I think some people here could have taken to mean that research is cited based on reputation or to associate with that reputation instead of because it is being used in the citer’s own research. If that makes sense. I just wanted to clarify for the group.
Thanks for helping to clarify.
I heard about that. Personally, I have no problem with talking to people with different or even radical views. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
My concern though is how many people fall for the photo-ops, handshakes and caviar dinner after-party schmoozing. And in this case, is the Pontifical Academy an appropriate venue for Paul Ehrlich.
A lot of Christian leaders haven’t the faintest idea what is going on the world or in their own culture. In fact, much of the cultural battles (aside from the American NFL stuff) is being fought by liberal atheists and Jordan Peterson and to large extent on our behalves. It’s anyone’s guess how much longer the former will last.
Of course, even diverting slightly from the appeal to authority fallacy certain liberal Catholics under Pope Francis means Pope-bashing, anti-Christian, don’t focus on the REAL problems like abortion and the all-out war in the West by elites and their wannabes on children and marriage— just basically shut-up and give me my check in the mail or my Facebook friends happy feelings.
All of this can be traced back to the fundamental issue of being skeptical of global warming because the alarmists and their apologists hate dissenting views. Now that’s spread to social issues that even more directly concern the Church, and people still don’t get it.
While I’d be in favour of reducing pollutants and protecting the environment, I have my doubts about man-made climate change. We’ve been told for 30 years that the impending environmental catastrophe is coming in just a few years. But the date keeps getting pushed a few years down the road. In 1995 it was 2015. Now it’s 2050. I’m sure in 2050 it’ll be 2100. Judging by the last several million years, the planet just goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Until we figure out how to control that, we have to deal with it. If you look at paintings and reports from 17th Century England you’ll see reports of very cold weather and icebergs floating in the estuarys of English rivers. I think this whole thing is just the left trying to exert even more control over people and business with government regulations that will do nothing to help the environment but will certainly be a burden on the average Joe. (See UK and Irish Govt declaring that Petrol cars will be phased out by 2030).
The man-made catastrophe people have been doing it long enough that we can now see their lies. You have to call them lies, because they are falsehoods intended to deceive … because we can see their falsities for what they are.
They are absolutely certain … and then we see where they shaded their data … and where they also faked their data.
You cannot know the intentions of another. You can only surmise.
When the data are deliberately manipulated, then you can know.
There’s no such thing as absolute certainty in any model or experiment. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t understand science or is just lying.
If they pulled the “no uncertainty” nonsense in court over water or soil quality issues, they’d lose the case immediately and would be the laughing stock of the field.
Without question it is an agenda. I don’t think everyone wants to control people for the sake of controlling them, I think they just want adulation at academic conferences, on Facebook and a way to get grant money so they can pretend they are saving the world.
For fraudulent data manipulation to be the basis for a theory with such wide acceptance by the scientific community there would have to be a conspiracy of historic proportions involving scientists and organizations from all over the world. Conspiracy theories are fun, but in the real world, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. A handful of out-of-context e-mails does not constitute an explanation of this world-wide conspiracy that would have to exist. But if enough people just keep crying “foul” I suppose some people will believe them - until they look into it for themselves.
The data manipulation is only to support the catastrophic component.
The theory is widely accepted at it’s core, and the models work pretty well when you assume ECS is closer to 1-1.5C with doubling.
OK, now get Monte to agree to that.
There is a world-wide conspiracy. It is the UN’s IPCC. Through its malign influence it has played a major role in the corruption of an entire field of science.
The thousands of climate gate emails paint a very clear picture of IPCC bigwigs conspiring to tamper with journals, violate FOIA laws, manipulate data, suppress the publication of skeptics’ papers… Nothing out-of-context about them.
It all breaks down, when the temps do not cooperate. When they do not go up.
Did you know it is snowing in Montana and Colorado, right now, today?
As has been stated before, numbers can be made to say anything. (I saw this as someone with an educational backround in social sciences, don’t believe me? Wait for the next news report citing a statistical likely-hood and then read the actual journal :D)
There’s a yuge, yuge hubris involved in thinking that we as man have such an effect on the world. We unleashed the most destructive forces we have upon Chernobyl and Pripyat but nature has reclaimed it despite that with a vengeance.
The IPCC does not have the power to direct a world-wide conspiracy that would have to extend far beyond the confines of the IPCC proper. I can list dozens of organizations that are outside of the IPCC who support global warming theory. It is unimaginable that the IPCC could control them all. It is also unimaginable why the IPCC would be able to convince so many scientists to join them. The extraordinary proofs of your extraordinary claim are lacking.
As for the e-mails, they are out of context because you did not read the ones that came before them to understand the context they were referring to. The e-mails were hand-picked and spoon fed by those intent on proving their point. Did you bother to ask the writers of those e-mails for their side of the context? No? There is reason why an impartial judge listens to both sides before coming to a decision.
You just pay people, you incentivize them, to do the conspiracy talk.
Read the East Anglia emails, a thousand of them, covering a ten year period, to realize that the conspiracy is wide spread.
The IPCC, being a UN organization, is ideally positioned to direct a world-wide conspiracy. It is an organization of governments with 195 members from around the world. Its purpose is to investigate the human causes of global warming. The driving force behind its formation was Maurice Strong, the communist billionaire and aggressive anti-human population controller.
Its prestige is undeniable, having shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Algore. It has positioned itself to be the world’s leading expert on climate change. Here is John Holdren’s chararacterization of the IPCC’s pronouncements:
“The most important conclusions … are based on an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.”
In short, no one comes close in replicating the efforts of the IPCC. They have the motive, the means, the power, the backing, and the money to lead the conspiracy to convict CO2. And they have been at it since 1988.
Of course there are organizations who are outside of the IPCC who support GW. But so what? How can be they be considered truly independent of the IPCC and arriving at their own conclusions when their members participate in the IPCC review process? The National Academy of Science is a good example. How can they be considered truly independent if all they do is repeat IPCC talking points. The US National Climate Assessment is a good example. And how can we take the endorsements of many of these organizations at face value when these endorsements are made unilaterally by their leaders? e.g. Am. Meteorological Association.
The IPCC doesn’t need to control them all. There are many eager participants who want to get in on the gravy train.
There is no gravy train. There is more gravy on the fossil fuel train. If you want to cash in, that is the train to jump on.
Your massive conspiracy theory does not make sense. There is no top-down control structure in the IPCC that would make the results controllable by one man. Scientists by their very nature and temperament are skeptical and independent. Sure, they have to eat, and the promise of a job might be some incentive. But they would not starve if they worked for the fossil fuel industry either. They are assured of a decent living no matter where they work.
The history of science is full of stories of scientists who did sacrifice their livelihoods to pursue some investigation on their own - often without any pay at all. There is no reason to think that today’s scientists are so easily corrupted.
Another thing about scientists, they are driven by the quest for fame - even more than by financial success or peer acceptance. There is nothing better a scientist could hope for than to be cited in future textbooks as the first one to discover something that others did not know. By contrast there is hardly any reward for being counted as one of many who agree with the crowd. Everything about the psychology of scientists argues against their being easy to control. In your conspiracy theory most of the scientists would go public about the massive top-down control subverting their results. What you are describing is really really hard to do. That is why I asked for correspondingly extraordinary proofs that this corruption is taking place. All I have seen so far in inuendo. A few out-of-context emails do not constitute this extraordinary proof.
Not true. The US government alone has spent around 100 billion on climate-related programs since the late 1980s. Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, has remarked in speeches that government funding has indeed been a gravy train that many scientists are eager to jump on. While I can’t quantify it, there is also funding from lefty foundations and from energy companies who are either trying burnish their environmental credibility or who have been green-mailed into making hefty donations. Long and the short of it, skeptical scientists don’t get the big money.
The IPCC bureaucracy moves in lock-step with the larger global warming movement. Its leaders have all been environmental activists. There is indeed a top-down control structure within the IPCC itself which ensures that the reports serve the cause. While the IPCC cannot dictate what the chapter authors say, they sure try to influence what they say. For example Richard Lindzen reports that bureaucrats would go amongst the authors and brow-beat them into toning down their criticisms of models. The lead authors can also unilaterally make changes even after the text has been agreed upon in order to conform with the pre-written summaries.
Scientists are human beings. Poor fallen pitiful creatures, sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, just like you and me. They are susceptible to peer pressure and the lure of money, fame, and academic success. They like to run with the herd. They respond to carrots and sticks. You should watch Patrick Michaels very good talk on climate science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpNzwzwm-xU&t=1566s . You should also listen to what scientists like Lindzen and Tim Ball have to say about the corruption of their field. Their testimony is compelling. Check out one of Lindzen’s papers on the politics of climate science: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762.pdf