When
“concerned citizens” begin to speak of "global warming", my first
reaction is usually to ask them if they know when that rise in sea level is
going to happen as promised. I’ve been promised a lot of things in my life thus
far, and this is one of those that I just can’t quite decide if I’m unhappy
it’s been broken so spectacularly or thrilled that my first assessment of such
outrageous claims backed by nothing that could be verified by independent means
using the original data and methodologies was incredibly accurate.
These
famous studies that can never be replicated are the foundation on which these
horror stories of level 9 tsunamis, 10.5 earthquakes, Noah-and-the-Ark-level
flooding, and all manner of apocalyptic prediction that’s only surpassed by
what's in the book of Revelation itself. WHY do people so readily accept
extraordinary claims without the requisite extraordinary evidence? The data
used to create the models that produced these (lies) predictions was destroyed by the
“scientists” who conducted the studies, claiming it was no longer needed?
Really? Last I heard, if any experiment was impossible to replicate
independently and at will, then any results from the original studies must be
thrown out. Those results are meaningless to the scientific community if all we
have is their word for it that the data was sound, the methods were stringent,
and the information generated was not subject to tampering and could be proved
not to have been, through what real scientists call "the chain of
possession", documented by signatures at each stage of the processes
involved.
Any good,
ethical and intellectually honest man or woman of science will tell you this.
If the models which cannot be replicated because the data used to create them
can never be recovered for use are considered to be so good, then tell me
honestly what you think of this: What has happened within the scientific
community to alter its standards, practices and expectations so much that it
will now accept unverifiable results using a method known for its propensity to
inaccuracy and false results?
What kind of men and women are they who can look
us in the eye with a straight face and tell us that “The Science is settled”, when the very premise on which science is founded demands that no science ever
be settled, as science is the fundamental quest to learn all that can be
learned? Once something is declared “settled”, the door is forever and
irrevocably slammed shut on that subject—no more can be learned, else the act
of learning something new proves the fallibility of those who declared that
subject to be finished, and without new information to justify its study? Nice going,
guys. You just cut off your own nose to spite your own face.
There are
some of us who maintain healthy skepticism, so we have always known that this
particular model approach just isn't generally accepted alone as evidence
because of those known tendencies to run off the grid without extraordinary
evidence to support ANY explanation or theory as to why that happens. When did
these “Scientists” decide that most people are now ignorant enough that their
claims would be believed, simply by repeating the words while refusing to
provide any detractors the necessary tools to substantiate or refute the claims
independently? Did it happen when the IPCC delegated these same
“scientists” to "prove" specific,
clear and corrupt results supporting claims of global warming? When did these
scientists disregard the scientific standard of methodology which dictates absolutely
that no sound experimentation begins with a predetermined result which they are
told to produce? Solid science begins with a premise, not a result.
The
experimentation must always be designed to DISPROVE the theory or premise, NEVER to prove a supposition, opinion, or
theoretical conclusion. This entire subset of the general scientific community
set out, and still sets out today, not in order to conduct scientific work but
instead it seems their primary job is to design experiments and studies which
confirm the original results. They do this rather than design sound
experimentation and studies which may disprove them.
Can you
imagine the dedication needed to perpetrate that type of fraud? They surely do
love their man-made global catastrophe theories- and do please note, they are
THEORIES, NOT FACTS- regardless of the words you’ve heard from persuasive
shills and con-men disguised as respectable politicians, social leaders and men
of learning which have been crafted and designed specifically to convince you
otherwise.
There is
no such thing as "settled" in science, and when someone with a PhD.
or M.S. behind their name tries to tell you that there is, you should discard
anything they present by authority of their title as a supposed “expert” as
either intellectually dishonest at best, or a blatant lie at worst. I guess
what was once a small segment of the scientific community involved in the field
prior to the switch from global cooling alarmist to global warming alarmist
expected everyone to forget that in the 70s we were told we'd be under a meter
of ice by now, After all, that was over 40 years ago. How dare some of us
actually retain information we learned in school during the 70s!
Now is
about the time that most people who believe the climate change narrative are
thoroughly enraged, sputtering and red-faced in near-blinding anger, accusing
me of hating the planet, loving corporations, being guilty of the crime of
“greed” and “selfishness” in the face of the imminent death of the planet and
all of mankind with it. What rubbish. Try again, and please find something
either based on reason and logic, or at least original and entertaining to use
to support your position concerning my character, not simply opinion and
indignant insistence.
I am none of those things, by the way. I hold this
opinion for two reasons. The first and more important of the two is that I simply have never seen credible evidence as
dictated by the scientific method to convince me that if I use
recycled paper, turn off the
ceiling light and read by a dimmer bulb in my lamp that I will be
contributing to the effort designed to result in the reduction of global
temperatures at all, let alone even by one hundredth of a degree centigrade or
more, at any time into the foreseeable future on this planet. It is their job
to convince me. I do not have the obligation to accept it
just because someone else does, or because I’ve been told for ten years that
it’s true. I’ve not been given anything close to what I can accept as credible
evidence. And guess what? The scientists and their supporters do not get to determine how much evidence
is “acceptable” or how credible any of that evidence should be. As a skeptic, I
get to make that determination, not them. I’ll let you know when you’re
getting close. Other than that, the onus is on the experts making the claims,
not me.
On the
subject of “peer review” which is constantly being trotted out as evidence that
the “science is settled” I have only a few things to say…. Do any people
outside of the scientific community even know what “peer review” actually
entails, or do lay persons simply think that because more than one scientist
agrees with another, this somehow translates to credible, repeatable,
independently verifiable reports on verifiable, independently repeatable
experiments? You gotta be kidding me! Are people really that gullible? They never once
consider that “peer reviews” are always conducted within a small community of
men and women who simply have to say that they either liked their reports,
agree with the premise, result, method, a portion of the presented “evidence”,
or more likely they simply are being paid by the same employer who expects them to produce specific
results as a team?
They
never thought of the obvious, which they are so keen to point out as a flaw
with the opposing view?
(I’m now giving an epic Face Palm that
even Picard would approve of, along with a slow, sad shaking of my head afterward)
I mourn
for humanity, I truly do.
The fall
from grace began with all of the public attention given to this scientific
field when they first raised the hue and cry about how the earth was going to
freeze us to death. This directly caused an explosion of "climate
science" specialists to appear where there had been only a handful
worldwide before then. Their government grants, privately funded university
endowments, or university funding that is generated directly from student fees
and registrations is what supports every single one of them who supports the
idea that the planet is warming due to the activities of man.
It
doesn’t help that the opposition is paid for by big business who have clearly
defined vested interests of their own, and because their funding is not public
thievery, they can be pointed to as biased, while the pointers are enjoying the
protection afforded them through the idiocy of the populace in their belief
that governments can’t be biased, but corporations are always biased.
It’s now
big business for the people with money and power to continue this push for
everyone to get on board, to believe we are under constant threat of
"climate change", and to these now-pseudo scientists, it is
fundamentally crucial. They rely on the population’s continued ignorance, so
the general population so often thought of as their inferiors can be ever more
easily led to believe what they tell us to believe-- that we not only have
caused this impossible to predict prediction (it’s still prediction, because absolutely NONE of the predictions have borne out in
the last 15 years or so since we began hearing them…Really! Look it up if
you don’t believe me), but also to have us believe without question that we
must also then have the ability to control it by our actions and policies.
The scientific
community is willing to perpetuate their pseudoscience as fact, no matter how
patently ridiculous the claims may be, as long as the dollars keep rolling in.
Now, even the skeptical scientists are in collusion with them, since the money
to be made by this ongoing dispute is phenomenal! Just think about all the
opportunities to make money on the side by controlling the “results”, either
way! How could that carrot dangling in front of them not be appealing,
especially since college and grad school are SO expensive now! After all, these men and women with letters after
their names are still human, and have bills to pay, too.
I expect
nothing less than to be proved correct in my assessment that we will certainly
see more sloppy work coined as "research', and modeling, along with “peer
review” will be considered sufficient “evidence” of a claim, instead of
replicable results from experiments using actual scientific method. I'm
resigned to it, but I don't have to just accept it, because NO... the science is NOT settled. I’ll keep trying to make
everyone understand, on both sides, that they’ve been had. And know
this: I take no pleasure in having seen it longer than you may have.
1 comment:
Yup, what you said.
Post a Comment