Shocking details of corruption and suppression in the world of peer-reviewed climate science have come to light with a recent leak of emails. They show how a determined group of activist scientists and journalists combined to secure the retraction of a paper that said a climate emergency was not supported by the available data. Science writer and economist Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has published the startling emails and concludes: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the day – Climategate reduxAugust 26th, 2023 |
 18 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Climategate redux |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
As I mentioned over at Timmy’s place:
Science has indeed been corrupted – sometimes the data will be misused, misused by the establishment – not by its critics, and sometimes the data will just be made up – such as computer “estimating” past temperatures in various parts of the world, in order to claim that such-and-such a day or month is “the hottest ever” when the real data for places in the world that have long term data sets show that it is NOT.
Nor is this “just” the C02 is evil theory, it is also (for example) “there is no effective Early Treatment for Covid”, when there were several effective Early Treatments, and “the vaccines are safe and effective” when they were not very effective and were certainly not safe.
The same “scientists” in America who said that Covid lockdowns would save many lives (they knew they would not) also said that the lockdowns did not apply to BLM “protests” (riots – orgies of looting and destruction) because “racism is a public heath emergency”.
And the same people who say that C02 is evil do not give a damn about C02 produced in China – it turns out that, according to these scientists, only C02 produced in Western countries is evil.
As for “catching the scientists bang to rights” admitting their fraud in e.mails (for example the fraud of the “Hockey Stick” – the pretence that such things as the Medieval Warm Period, the “Little Ice Age”, and the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s did not happen) – exposing the fraud does not seem to matter.
Indeed the media (both government and corporate media – there is no real difference) either ignore the proof of scientific fraud, or denounce the people who reveal the fraud, rather than the fraudsters.
“And politicians Paul?”.
If I were to say any of the above in a council meeting I would be shouted down and then punished, it would be like calling out “Long Live the King!” during the French Revolution.
Allowing the humanities to be corrupted in the universities and schools was always, eventually, going to lead to the natural sciences being corrupted – either objective truth exists and has moral importance, or it does not. And the international establishment have decided that objective truth does not exist and/or has no moral importance.
What is the moral difference between saying a policy of “laissez faire” was followed in Ireland in the late 1840s, when a policy of crushing Poor Law taxation (the Poor Law tax system did not even exist in Ireland before 1838) was really followed, or saying that President Herbert “The Forgotten Progressive” Hoover followed free market policies at the time of the Great Depression (the real policies of 1929 to 1933 were massively higher tax rates, both on imported goods and domestic income tax – the top rate of which went from 25% to over 60%, and government intervention to PREVENT wages adjusting to the Credit Money bust of 1929) and rigging temperature statistics? There is no moral difference.
Lying is lying – if it is O.K. to lie about history and economics, it is going to be O.K. to lie about scientific data as well.
From the Pragmatist philosophers of the late 19th century the very concept of objective and universal truth has come under attack – essentially giving the Green Light to lying if it is for a “Progressive” (read Collectivist – increasing state power) cause.
The lying was never going to stay in “just” the humanities and social sciences, it was bound to spread into the physical sciences.
After all justifying tyranny by saying “the science” demands it, is an old tactic.
Paul:
I am sure you know the term “hard faced men who did well out of the war”. Well, I think the same applies to the “climate emergency”, aka “global boiling”.
There is no such thing, and if there were, there would be no need for academic thugs to suppress genuine science.
The climate scam is set to be the biggest transfer of wealth ever, from the ordinary people of the west to unaccountable oligarchs. It is the biggest heist in history.
You will recall that Mrs May forced “Net Zero” on to Britain. Now this boring woman is paid millions of pounds for speeches which I imagine are as dull as she is. If she received that money in a suitcase it would be a scandal, but a quarter of a million pounds for a speech is just fine.
She’ll be all right, I expect. So will Boris, the clown who used to laugh at wind power until he was in power, and then became an abject convert. He pockets the speech money too, about five million pounds so far.
The rest of us can plan to shiver in our hovels and die. That’s our role in the scam, so long as we keep on voting for it.
COMPLIANCE WARNING:
Even if you’ve been vaccinated against Global Boiling, you may still be subject to Long Boiling unless you are up-to-date with your climate taxes.
Its actually much worse. It a completely failure of modern science.
I can understand why those who have built their careers around the whole AGW cargo-cult science do what they do. Blame publish or perish. What I cannot understand is why those scientists who are skeptical about the whole house of cards have not done even the most basic dive through the published papiers for whole chain of reasoning for the AGW theory. Starting with the foundation literature. I did a deep dive through the whole AGW skeptical literature a while back I could not find anywhere anyone who did a thorough critical analysis of the first principals of AGW. Which is the Energy Balance Model of Sellers, Budyko, et al. Not even in someone’s blog post musings.
This is important because if you actually read the original published papers, and book in the case of Budyko, you quickly realize that its a partial system model (for impact of volcanoes on triggering Ice Ages) that is based on assumptions that work for short time scale meteorology modelling (solar radiant heat is the only significant energy input in the system) but is completely invalid if you try to apply this to a whole system energy model to evaluate the equilibrium temperature of the system. Basically they ignore standard thermal model physics and earth geophysics when they calculated a potential C02 Atmospheric Forcing value. My guess is they neither knew the relevant science or math to create a full system model .
In simple terms the foundations on which AGW is built assumes that the temperature of solid surface of the earth is zero. Little different from the moon. Create a more realistic geophysical and thermal model for the surface / surface layer gas of the earth and C02 forcing value falls to almost 0C. Maybe 4C max. So undetachable and definitely unprovable.
So with AGW we are actually way beyond Lysenkoism territory and way into astrology and phrenology territory.
There aint no science involved. Anywhere. And the total failure of those highly qualified scientists on the skeptical side to even read the published literature to realize this shows just how complete the total intellectual bankruptcy of post 1960’s science actually is.
To rework Upton Sinclair:
It is difficult to get a man not to dispute something when his salary depends on his disputing it.
It’s all tribal signaling. If you want people to think of you as one of the Good People, and not one of those evil hairy-knuckled strappy-tee-shirted deniers, you must come down on the side of Chicken Little.
The progressives figured out how to control their sheep-like members. We have just as many sheep on our side, but we’re lousy at running them this way.
JohnK
According to Nadine Dorries, the Member of Parliament and former minister who has just resigned, one of the chief faults of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is that he is not committed enough to “Net Zero” – he should be imposing more costs on the British people, not less.
According to the resignation letter of the lady (read it at the BBC site – the lady wants a Pound for the Mail newspaper if you click on her Twitter link) the Prime Minister is also supposedly not spending enough money on social care, levelling up, the poor and disadvantaged, defence and – well just about everything really. But also taxes are too high. Higher spending and lower taxes?
I actually agree with the complaints the lady makes about the lack of democracy and the various conspiracies – but the policy part of the letter, was not good.
As you say it was a bit like Alexander Boris Johnson – who was indeed against the Green agenda, till he was for it, ditto HS2 and the Covid lockdowns.
Today: “The climate crisis is very real! You must accept restrictions on your greedy Western lifestyles and pay more taxes to the State!”
Back In The Day: “God’s holy wrath is very real! You must refrain from indulging in sinful activities and pay more tithes to the Church!”
The concept evolves, but the scam stays the same.
Future generations will rake over the muck heap of climate alarmism and be gobsmacked at the credulity of our generation and the dumb compliance of scientists, teachers, and politicians.
Zerren Yeoville.
It is indeed rather odd that in the 1970s the international establishment, David Rockefeller, Klaus Schwab and so on, were telling us that Global Cooling (the “coming Ice Age”) meant that we had to accept international “governance” and end to our liberties, but since the end of the 1980s the international establishment (David Rockefeller is no longer alive, but he was about at the Rio Conference of 1992 – and Dr Schwab is still about) has been telling us that Global Warming means… well means the same thing, we have to accept international governance and an end to liberty.
It is as if it is the objective, international governance and an end to liberty, that is important to these people – and the justification they use, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Covid, whatever, does not really matter to them at all.
Paul:
Nadine Dorries is right in regard to Rishi Sunak: he is an unelected nonentity who is leading his government to annihilation at the next election.
She is wrong about almost everything else. She is behind the disastrous Online Harms Bill, and she seems to have a strange crush on Boris Johnson, the liar and failed prime minister. I confess I have not followed her career closely enough to know she was a net zero fanatic, but if Boris was in favour of it, it is no surprise she was.
In sum, if brains were dynamite, she couldn’t blow out a candle. And she’s probably not the thickest MP out there.
On of the things I find funny is how often I agree with the statements of the opposition, even though we mean completely different things. For example:
> Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”.
Well yeah, I mean I couldn’t agree more, though I suspect though that Marlowe and I are talking about different things.
Or the claim that CAGW is a civilization threatening situation, which I wholeheartedly agree with — the utter undermining and destruction of science, replacing the scientific process with appeals to obviously deeply corrupted authorities is absolutely a threat to civilization.
I was thinking I could make good money by selling a t-shirt with Trump’s mugshot with the words “What goes around comes around”. Then it struck me that lefties would love it — thinking that it meant Trump was getting what he deserved — and Trumpies would love it — thinking that it was a threat that what they do to Trump we will do to your guy.
It is just a perfect illustration of how utterly bifurcated the world is that exactly the same words can mean exactly the opposite to the two sides.
I posted on a thread at Tim Worstal’s blog about fake charities. That post seems to be appropriate to stories about corruption in climate studies too.
This post took me all the way back to school. Some wag would impart to his peers what he thought was some juicy piece of gossip not being aware that everyone had already heard about it. He would then be told in jeering tones “tell us news not history”. I can still hear that jeering inflection, a mixture of mockery and contempt.
When climate alarmism finally hits the buffers as it surely will eventually, where will it leave the BBC? Aren’t they going to end up in the same position as those newspapers that supported the Fascists in the run up to world war two?
It will leave them exclaiming that the data now surely show that their vigilance and hard work in presenting news of the catastrophe seem to have paid off, that they have no doubt saved humanity and Gaia from certain incineration, and that they’d rather we not lionize them now that the danger has passed, but simply chuck them on the shoulder and say “job well done!”, and move on.
And then they will begin producing news stories about what we MUST do – NOW, TODAY! – to prevent global freezing.
Resilient bastards.
Aren’t they going to end up in the same position as those newspapers that supported the Fascists in the run up to world war two?
The Daily Mail seems to outsell the Guardian by many multiples.
JohnK
You are correct that the Prime Minister was not elected – but I am told he is a charming man who loves his wife and children.
As for his policies – if the lady is correct, then the Prime Minister is against the “On Life Safety Bill”, against wild government spending, and against “Net Zero”.
It seems a bit unlikely that the lady is correct (given the Gentleman’s record as Chancellor), but let us live in hope!