Author Topic: Pathological Science  (Read 607138 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • 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: 3625
    • 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: 3625
    • 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: 3625
    • 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: 20133
    • 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: 19856
    • 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: 3625
    • 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: 3625
    • 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

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20133
    • View Profile


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • View Profile
"Alleged Causal Relationships" v. Real World Data
« Reply #1310 on: December 29, 2024, 10:09:07 PM »
A straightforward paper peeling away layers of CACA* dicta that ends:

5. Concluding remarks
• The foundation of the modern climate edifice is afflicted by erroneous assumptions and speculations.
• The causal chain promoted by mainstream science is naïve and wrong.
• In scientific terms, the case of the magnified importance of CO2, the focus on human emissions thereof, and the neglect of the ~25 times greater natural CO2 emissions consti-
tute a historical accident.
• This accident was exploited in non-scientific (politico-economic) terms.
• For complex systems, observational data are the only scientific test bed for making hy-
potheses and assessing their validity.
• The real-world data do not agree with the “mainstream science” (a euphemism for soph-
istry).
• The results I have presented are scientific and therefore may not be relevant to the climate
narrative, which has a non-scientific aim.

https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Koutsoyiannis-DogTail-Nov-2024.pdf


*Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19856
    • View Profile
Re: Pathological Science
« Reply #1311 on: January 09, 2025, 10:00:48 AM »
One more time in case any Liberals are reading, combustion doesn't make the air drier.

Fuel + O2 => CO2 + H2O

40 million people trying to water their lawn doesn't make the air drier either.

Warmer air holds more moisture. Who knew?

Now I hear that wetter conditions cause fire because vegetation grows where it wouldn't otherwise.

Forest fires and brush fires are not new. Santa Ana winds are not new either.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20133
    • View Profile
Re: Pathological Science
« Reply #1312 on: January 09, 2025, 04:56:16 PM »
doesn't help to have, what 5 million illegals in the state using scarce water.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73641
    • View Profile
Re: Pathological Science
« Reply #1313 on: January 09, 2025, 06:15:25 PM »
Working from memory:

Rainy season November-early April.   Not very predictable, some years there is a fair amount of rain, others not.  A year or two ago there was A LOT.   Thus, a lot of brush.

This brush dries out in the dry season (say, April-October).

Thus the greatest risk of fire is towards the end of the dry season after a rainy season.   If there is little to no rain the risk season is longer/later.

Santa Ana winds are when the wind blows in from the desert.   Hot, dry air.

The topography of the mountains/canyons is such that the winds in the canyons can be very, very strong.

In other words, the present moment was a confluence of all the ways in which risk was heightened.

For those from the LA area all this is understood, and certainly is, or should be part of the mayor's understanding.   The Santa Ana winds were predicted, and the Vice Mayor (not sure of his exact title) was under arrest or something like that for calling in a bomb threat.  :-o :-o :-o  No way that Mayor Bass (another endangered fish jokes Gutfield) should have been at the far end of a 17 hour flight to Ghana and no one minding the store.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • View Profile
NIH: Funding Pause on Mediocrity Causes Anguished Cries
« Reply #1314 on: January 29, 2025, 05:48:45 PM »
Brutal piece about the mediocrity the National Institutes of Health solicits and underwrites. I am going to have to track this author as, if the rest of his posts are this direct, well sourced, and unapologetic he will prove to be a fantastic resource indeed:

https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/nih-study-sections-are-broken

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • View Profile
T-Rex Schools the UN on CO2
« Reply #1315 on: January 30, 2025, 05:21:17 AM »
Prominent “denier” Dr. Willy Soon drops amusing truth bombs re CO2 levels when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Five minutes well spent:

https://youtu.be/eESrGB_ePuE?feature=shared

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • View Profile
Social Engineering & Censorship
« Reply #1316 on: January 30, 2025, 06:00:14 AM »
3rd or something post:

How “prosocial censorship” damages scientific inquiry:

The scourge of prosocial censorship
Posted on January 22, 2025 by curryja | 217 Comments
by John Ridgway

How an emergent scientific consensus results from social engineering enabled by prosocial censorship.

A recent research paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that both self-censorship and the prosocial censorship of colleagues are commonplace within the sciences — and the problem is only getting worse. Some of the figures make for grim reading:

“A recent national survey of US faculty at four-year colleges and universities found the following: 1) 4 to 11% had been disciplined or threatened with discipline for teaching or research; 2) 6 to 36% supported soft punishment (condemnation, investigations) for peers who make controversial claims, with higher support among younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty; 3) 34% had been pressured by peers to avoid controversial research; 4) 25% reported being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ likely to self-censor in academic publications; and 5) 91% reported being at least somewhat likely to self-censor in publications, meetings, presentations, or on social media.”

The case of Lennart Bengtsson

On 30th April 2014 a Swedish meteorologist caused shock waves to reverberate across the international community of climate scientists. This was not because he had made a major discovery, nor had he been involved in a scientific scandal. But what he had done was to commit the cardinal sin of joining the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The reason why to some this was so shocking was because he wasn’t just any old Swedish meteorologist; he was Professor Lennart Bengtsson, the former head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts before becoming its director until 1990. He had then moved on to become director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Amongst his many accolades he had been awarded the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996, the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research in 2005, and the 51st International Meteorological Organization Prize of the World Meteorological Organization in 2006. In 2009 he was made an honorary fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in recognition of his contribution to meteorology.

Only a fortnight later the same Swedish meteorologist caused an aftershock by resigning from the same foundation. The self-appointed guardians of scientific truth at DeSmog will tell you that it was because he hadn’t quite realised what a shower of reprobates he had joined and so he quickly learned to regret his actions. However, this is what Bengtsson said in his resignation letter:

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF…Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

Bengtsson’s censorious colleagues seemed quick to prove his point by denouncing his accusation that they had denounced him. Gavin Schmidt, for example, dismissed his reference to McCarthyism as being “ridiculous”, suggesting instead that it was the brave scientists such as himself who were the real victims of a witch hunt.

Appalling though it may seem that Professor Bengtsson should have been treated this way, he cannot claim to have not seen it coming. Earlier that same year a paper, in which he had the temerity to suggest that the projected warming was unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as others had maintained, was rejected by the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters on the basis that his findings were “less than helpful“. By way of clarification, the peer reviewer concerned added the reproof, “actually it [the paper] is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate-skeptic media side“. When Bengtsson and others, such as meteorologist Hans von Storch, condemned the rejection as scandalous, the journal’s publisher was eager to play down the comments made by the peer reviewer, claiming instead that the paper simply did not meet the journal’s high standards. Yes, that old chestnut.

Prosocial censorship

What Bengtsson had in fact been subjected to is prosocial censorship. It is a form of censorship in which work is rejected, and individuals cancelled, not because the work is substandard or flawed, but because it threatens to undermine a cherished ideology or someone else’s concept of societal safety and harmony. Such censorship is never portrayed as such, of course; the reason given is always that the individual(s) concerned were peddling substandard work leading to harmful misinformation.

For example, if you were to be an Emeritus Professor of Risk with an international reputation for expertise in forensic statistics, but you then produced work that called into question government figures that seemed to be misrepresenting the severity of a pandemic or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, you could expect your career to be cancelled on the basis that you are peddling harmful misinformation.

If, for example, you were to be a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist with more than fifteen years of experience pioneering psychotherapy for patients with gender dysphoria, but you then dared to say that everything in your professional experience had led you to the inescapable conclusion that transgender activists were guilty of promoting inappropriate physical interventions to deal with a basically psychological problem, then you could expect to be denounced as “the most evil dangerous Nazi Psychiatrist in the world” — and a transphobe for good measure.

If, for example, you were a physicist at CERN with a bright future ahead of you, but were then to suggest that the unbalanced gender representation within your field had nothing to do with patriarchy and everything to do with inherent gender traits, then you could expect to be vilified as a misogynist and ostracised by your fellow scientists.

And if, for example, you were to be a prominent climate scientist who had pointed out that self-censorship was rife within your field and that it was responsible for the absence of papers published in prominent journals that quantify both the climatic and non-climatic causations of wildfires, then you could expect the likes of the Grantham Institute’s Bob Ward to bleat that “Unfortunately, his bogus narrative has predictably been seized upon by the opponents of action to tackle climate change“. Worse still, none other than Professor Ken Rice (think poor man’s Sabine Hossenfelder) would be moved to refer to you as if you are now dead to them:

“Given that there can be preferred narratives within scientific communities, it is always good for there to be people who are regarded as credible and who push back against them. Even if you don’t agree with them, they can still present views that are worth thinking about. In my view, Patrick used to be one of those people.” [His emphasis]

Oh, the shame of it all!

In the above examples, the common narrative is one of a previously respected expert who had sadly fallen from grace because they couldn’t help themselves and had allowed their toxic opinions to compromise their ability to stick to the truth. As a consequence, they instantaneously transform into incompetent bad actors who are a danger to society, heartily deserving of prompt and emphatic prosocial censorship.

To be clear, these are not isolated examples.

There are, however, trends to be observed. Censorship is more of a problem in the social sciences than within STEM faculties. Women are keener to censor than are their male colleagues. And whilst right-leaning academics are more likely to engage in self-censorship, the left-leaning are far more likely to approve of the prosocial censorship of a colleague. Since prosocial censorship biases both the selection and promotion of staff members, it follows that the system is currently structured in such a way as to entrench the preponderance of left-leaning academics in senior positions. Worse still, the appetite for prosocial censorship is greater within the ranks of the PhDs than it is within faculty staff, suggesting that – to borrow a turn of phrase favoured by climate scientists – the problem is baked in for the future.

As the terminology suggests, those who advocate prosocial censorship will often do so for what they perceive to be the best of possible motives. Most commonly, the intention is to prevent research from being appropriated by “malevolent actors to support harmful policies and attitudes”. Sometimes the research is considered too dangerous to pursue, and in many other cases the censorship is aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. However, no matter how well-intended, the censorship comes with many obvious risks, the clearest of which is the possible suppression of the truth in the cause of a ‘greater good’.

At its most petty, all that may be at stake is one person’s reputation at the expense of a competitor. At its most extreme, prosocial censorship could involve a “wilful blindness of authorities” covering up a heinous crime for fear of offending a section of society, or for fear of giving encouragement to a right-wing that is assumed to be looking for any excuse to destabilise. Somewhere in the middle are the concerns harboured by the climate sceptic. Whilst we understand that science is not supposed to operate by consensus, we would, nevertheless, like to believe that an emergent consensus is the result of a developing common knowledge, rather than the result of social engineering enabled by prosocial censorship. Unfortunately, knowing that Professor Bengtsson’s experiences are far from unique does nothing to encourage such a belief. And, when all is said and done, that is the greatest shame of all. Prosocial censorship may seem a good idea, but it isn’t in the least bit desirable when it undermines the integrity of a discipline and causes widespread distrust amongst the wider community.

https://judithcurry.com/2025/01/22/the-scourge-of-prosocial-censorship/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19856
    • View Profile
Drought causes wet and warmth causes cooling
« Reply #1317 on: February 01, 2025, 03:44:56 PM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo

Drought causes wet and warmth causes cooling, because well it must. Don't make me explain it any further than that.

We've known for decades here that global warming can have a cooling effect.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2025, 03:47:30 PM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • View Profile
Kerry Gets Schooled
« Reply #1318 on: February 01, 2025, 04:41:37 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73641
    • View Profile
Re: Pathological Science
« Reply #1319 on: February 03, 2025, 06:39:24 PM »
 :-D :-D :-D

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3625
    • View Profile
A Trip Down Memory Lane
« Reply #1320 on: February 15, 2025, 05:33:42 PM »
No doubt corrections were immediately forthcoming once the scope of this Covid folly was fully understood:

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1890433585015874005