Author Topic: Pathological Science  (Read 578985 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
3rd post. One of the most apt descriptions of the structure and scope of the pathological science cabal:

Great speech by Bret Weinstein: "I believe we must zoom out if we are to understand the pattern that we are gathered here to explore, because the pattern is larger than federal health agencies and the COVID cartel. If we do zoom out and ask, what are they hiding?

The answer becomes as obvious as it is disturbing. They are hiding everything. It will be jarring for many to hear a scientist speak with such certainty. It should be jarring. We are trained to present ideas with caution as hypotheses in need of a test. But in this case, I have tested the idea, and I am as certain of it as I am of anything. We are being systematically blinded. It is the only explanation I have encountered that will not only describe the present, but also, in my experience, predicts the future with all but perfect accuracy.

The pattern is a simple one. You can see it clearly and test it yourself. Every single institution dedicated to public truthseeking is under simultaneous attack. They are all in a state of collapse. Every body of experts fails utterly. Individual experts who resist or worse, in an attempt to return their institutions to sanity, they find themselves coerced into submission.

If they won't buckle, they are marginalized or forced out. Those outside of the institutions who either seek truth alone or who build new institutions with a truth-seeking mission face merciless attacks on both their integrity and expertise, often by the very institutions whose mission they refuse to abandon.

There is a saying in military circles, once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action. I have no doubt that given an hour, the people on this panel could point to a hundred examples of the pattern I have just described, while finding even a handful of exceptions would pose a significant challenge.

We are left in a fool's paradise. Our research universities spend huge sums of public money to reach preordained conclusions. Professors teach only lessons that are consistent with wisdom students have picked up on TikTok, even when those lessons contradict the foundational principles of their disciplines.

Once proud newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post only report important stories after they have become common knowledge. Morticians must now raise the alarm over patterns missed by medical examiners. The CDC has become an excellent guide to protecting your health, but only for people who realize you should do the opposite of whatever it advises.

The courts, the last holdout in this ongoing inversion of reality, are now regularly used as a coercive weapon of elites against those who threaten them. We have literally witnessed the Department of Homeland Security attempt to set up a truth ministry and declare accurate critique of government as a kind of terrorism.

To my fellow patriots in the West, the pattern is unmistakable. I cannot tell you with any certainty who they are or what they hope to accomplish, but I can tell you that we are being systematically denied the tools of enlightenment and the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.

We, those who remain dedicated to the values of the West, must fight this battle courageously and we must win. For if we do not stem the tide, the result will be a dark age that differs from prior dark ages only in the power and sophistication of the coercive instruments wielded by those who will rule us."

https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1851748942574215460?s=12

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Biden/Harris Admin Feeds the DEI Machine Via "Science" Grants
« Reply #1301 on: October 31, 2024, 05:23:40 AM »
Thread documenting how the current admin are using research dollars to bulwark DEI goals and outcomes:

https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/1851722758352224618

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
100+ Pretend Weather Stations Providing “Real” Weather Data?
« Reply #1302 on: November 05, 2024, 12:31:56 PM »
At least real insofar as it’s treated as though it’s actual data, rather than data from a site no one can locate and that the UK’s Met weather org won’t provide definitive answers regarding when queried:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Scientific American Editor on the Election
« Reply #1303 on: November 09, 2024, 04:31:50 AM »
Got yer fair and unbiased paragon of editorial virtue right here:

https://realclimatescience.com/2024/11/scientific-american-editor-in-chief-speaks-out/#gsc.tab=0

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19804
    • View Profile
Re: Pathological Science
« Reply #1304 on: November 09, 2024, 05:54:28 AM »
For a while I used to get SA delivered.  I still like some stuff online.

It became clear there was NEVER an issue that did not have one or several woke, LEFTIST agendas to it.

It began before the corporate woke storm descended on the US like a Biblical plague.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19477
    • View Profile
climate-data-alteration fraud back in the news
« Reply #1305 on: November 14, 2024, 09:52:20 AM »
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/tag/Greatest+Scientific+Fraud

"The fraud in question in those posts is the intentional alteration of pre-existing temperature (or, in one case, sea level) records to create a narrative of dangerous climate change that, without the alterations, lacks support in the raw data. In the most recent post in this series, number 32, I remarked, “No other scientific fraud in world history comes close to this one in scope or significance.”

The climate-data-alteration fraud is hugely significant because the altered data provide the fundamental support for the ongoing multi-trillion-dollar effort of the Left to transform the world energy system, and ultimately the entire world economy. As the least expensive and most reliable forms of energy production get restricted, billions of people stand to see their lives impoverished to the extent of tens of thousands of dollars per year each. Is it remotely possible for any other fraud to come anywhere close to this one in significance?"
--------------
Like ccp says, we need to have honest discussions and solutions on climate.

The new administration has the opportunity to take the lead on that.  Publish real data and come up with real solutions.

Maybe hand it over to DOGE.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Buh-Bye, ScAm Editor
« Reply #1306 on: November 16, 2024, 11:35:22 AM »
Scientific American was worth a read up until about 5 years ago which, not coincidentally, was when this recently resigned ideologue took over editorial duties. Good bleeping riddance and My Sci Am deserve to reclaim some of its former glory:

https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/us-news/editor-in-chief-of-scientific-american-laura-helmuth-resigns-following-expletive-filled-rant-against-trump-voters/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
A Captive of a Malthusian Religion by Power Hungry Officials
« Reply #1307 on: November 20, 2024, 06:09:07 AM »
Chris Martz
@ChrisMartzWX
I am picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .

I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It's not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.

While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer have pointed out, there is general agreement within the scientific literature on these three things:

➊ Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has risen about 1.2°C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about as equal in magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years. 📈

🔗https://metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/

➋ Burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotopic fingerprint in the decrease of C13/C12 ratios. While this is not uniquely indicative of anthropogenic origin, it is a pretty solid indicator. 🏭

🔗https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/stable.html

➌ Earth's average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space. In effect, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed. 🌈

Beyond this, there is no agreement on:

➊ How much warming is man-made? The claim that virtually all of the warming is anthropogenic is based squarely on modeling studies. The IPCC's “best estimate” of greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to GMST change since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and their “best estimate” of aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100%. That doesn't sound like “settled science” to me.

🔗https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf (pp. 439-441)

➋ The exact equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) — a measure of how much warming results from doubling CO₂ concentrations once a new local equilibrium is achieved — and amount of warming left in pipeline for the 21st century. 🌡️

➌ Is warming dangerous for humanity and life on Earth as a whole? Is it a net benefit or a net drawback? This is not a settled matter, regardless of what experts say. The findings in the body of literature are mixed. It does not unequivocally support their notion that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷‍♂️

➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or mitigation? How should energy policy be handled? Do we change zoning codes? Do we construct seawalls to combat creeping sea level rise? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?

So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled. ❌

The case isn't closed. That book remains wide open on the table. 📖

However, what is indeed a scam is the push for “Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.

A legitimate scientific issue has become captive of a Malthusian religion by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people push for one-world governance where you are told what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system in a cashless society. The policy is the scam, not the basic underlying scientific theory.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1858615282086146262