Search the Community

Yeah, muh Russians! Muh Covington kids!! Muh 'Nazis are very fine people'!!! Muh 'All Mexicans are animals'!!!! Muh 97% of real, verified, actual, true climate scientists agree that we need socialism if we want to survive the Doom™!!!!! Muh 'dead soldiers are loser and suckers'!!!!!!

Oh, so 'show us the work' is important now? Cool. Oh, wait, but it's only important regarding this single issue, and not, say, anthropogenic climate change, right? Got it. J

Wahoo! The revival of Greta! The leftist media had spent all of that time and effort shoving Greta in our faces, trying to make her influential, but then the damned Covid ended all of that. Solution? Let's have Greta be an expert on Covid! Fuck yeah! Which policies will she support? Which punishments? How have we stolen her childhood and her dreams this time? By not wearing ineffective masks early enough? By not obeying soon enough? How daaaare you. You must bend the knee. https://n-politicss.blogspot.com/2020/05/beyond-parody-cnn-taps-greta-thunberg.html?fbclid=IwAR0ZAZ9qWMGnZA1JEmKqzQotuTW1JYmY7ZGFBwLxLGUdcKqrZFmTSXMYs0c Beyond parody: CNN taps Greta Thunberg for expert coronavirus panel The brave, hard-hitting journalists over at CNN are hosting a town hall Thursday evening on Coronavirus: Facts and Fears. Our First Amendment warriors are only bringing viewers the best of experts, such as former CDC Director Richard Besser, former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and … teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Did the manmade global warming climate change crisis emergency cause the coronavirus? I'm starting to hear that it did. The virus briefly distracted lefties from salivating over climate doom, but now they're beginning to remember to keep their focus, and to link anything bad to climate doom. How soon will the idea that the virus was caused by AGW become a "consensus" "settled science" "fact"? J

There's a new girl in the climate doom propaganda game. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/youtuber-campaigns-against-climate-alarmism-drawing-comparisons-to-greta-thunberg/ YouTuber campaigns against ‘climate alarmism,’ drawing comparisons to Greta Thunberg Feb. 23, 2020 at 5:24 pm Updated Feb. 23, 2020 at 7:01 pm By DESMOND BUTLER and Juliet Eilperin The Washington Post For climate skeptics, it’s hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes it’s found an answer: the anti-Greta. Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and _____ Do a search for "Naomi vs Greta." What a contrast in the left media's style of coverage of Naomi versus that of Greta. Hilarious. J

I'm not participating in a debate. Where did you get the idea that it was a debate? Pay attention: Billy asked what it would take to change our minds on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. I answered. I named my conditions. I simply explained that I'd need to see the details of the scientific method being followed, and I listed specifically what that would mean. Identify and define the single successful hypothesis, the duration of the observations, how that duration was chosen, identify the predictions, the specific conditions of falsifiability, independent repeatability and validation, etc., etc. I didn't ask for a debate. I didn't ask for douchebags to try to talk me into opting for a different method of what would convince me. But, anyway, regarding your statement above, no -- bullshit -- it is not necessary to see where each party agrees or disagrees. All that is needed is for you to state your case, define it, and support and defend it. That's all that my questions represent. Answer the questions. Stop trying to push the distraction of setting up a "debate." J

Okay, so how to sum up Brad’s return? Let’s see. I asked about the details of the successful hypothesis which “settled” the science once and for all regarding anthropogenic climate change. In response, first Brad substituted different questions that he liked better, and answered those instead: I had asked what the scientists who had achieved the successful model had identified, prior to making predictions and testing them, what length of time must be observed, and how was that length of time arrived at. Brad decided to pretend that I was asking what HE thought should be the proper duration, and not back prior to the predictions being made, but today, long after they’ve been made, and after reality as been observed in regard to those predictions. I asked what percentage of warming mankind is responsible for, and, in response, Brad took two different positions at the same time. He didn’t identify a single hypothesis which represented either of those two positions, or any of the details and conditions of the predictions, durations or falsifiability of either of those positions, but rather just stated that it was what certain unnamed people believed. Etc. With all of Brad’s maneuvering, I think that the potency of my questions is clear, and it’s also clear why Brad, and Billy, are so opposed to answering them. Distractions. Substituting their own distortions of my questions rather than answering mine. Pretending. Lying. Getting caught doing exactly what I’ve said they would do, and illustrating the need for my insistence on answering the questions that the scientific method demands. QED. J

See, the reason that all of the questions go together is because they apply to the same specific single hypothesis, and only to it. Your trick of answering one bit at a time has the purpose of shifting between different hypotheses while hoping that no one notices. A good example would be one of the items on the list that you posted on the issue of falsifiability was a hypothesis about Pinatubo. The subject at hand is the hypothesis that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and has been for a long time. The subject is not the predictions of the effects of the eruption of Pinatubo. The subject at hand is not the other isolated items on the list. Perhaps you're confused due to the inclusion of one of the questions on my list. That question asks that you specifically identify the hypothesis that was proposed prior to predictions and testing. In case you're confused (or, more likely, in case you're hoping to cause confusion), that doesn't mean that I'm asking you to provide any hypothesis that pops into your head -- say, about Pinatubo, for example -- but that the hypothesis must be that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and that the people who proposed the hypothesis specifically identified it as such. Understand? Earlier in this discussion, Billy clipped and pressed a floret of mine: "Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes! Douchebag." That was in response to your douchebag maneuver of switching hypotheses and hoping that we didn't notice. The idea behind the comment is that you will look for any and every opportunity to slither and stray from the actual subject in order to attempt to pass off something that doesn't actually address the subject at hand, but which you only hope appears to do so. If I demand falsifiability and repeatability, you will cite falsifiable and repeatable experiments, but ones which do not pertain to the subject at hand. The same is true of predictions and experiment dates and durations, and the choice of definitions: I ask that you identify the terms and conditions of the specific hypothesis and experiments, and instead you substitute your own idiotic pondering about how long of a time period you personally want as the defining aspect of "climate," and therefore how long of a time period that you feel should be required to be tested. Numbnuts, the questions are not about you and your moronic opinions, but about what the scientists themselves have actually proposed, defined, identified, and delimited in their hypotheses, predictions, etc. Specifically what are you accusing me of denying? Anyway, what would happen if you, or Billy, were to provide actual answers to all of my questions would be that we would then apply the identified criteria to reality. Not just to a portion of it here or there, and not while selectively omitting falsifiability on this section or repeatability on that section. The issue that I have is that you haven't answered the questions, but, once again, have only answered your own substitute questions which you seem to think are going to fool us into believing that you've actually answered the questions that I asked. J

Did you not read and comprehend my questions? In the very first sentence I knew that you would pull the moronic tactic of trying to disconnect the questions from their context of referring to the same hypothesis and its resulting predictions and testing, which is why I parenthetically included the comment "and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture." And here you are being moronic enough to do exactly what I predicted you would, and asked you not to. I didn't ask you to tell me anything that you felt like saying in regard to falsifiability. I asked specific questions. Read them again. The questions all go together, and apply to the exact same hypothesis, predictions and testing. They do not apply whatever random phenomena you wish to substitute. In regard to the issue of falsifiability, my question is what are the specific conditions of falsifiability in relation to the single hypothesis and its climate model which settled the science once and for all. Honestly, you are working way too hard to try to not understand questions which are so very easy to grasp. J

Oh, darn! So, you were going to answer my questions, and, in fact, you were just on the verge of doing so, but now you won’t because I accepted your invitation to join you in snark? Yeah, okay then, we’re all buying that. As earlier, you could easily answer the questions, but you just don’t want to right now? Because you’re having feelings? Because demanding that being treated in a way better than the way that you treat people is more important than scientifically nailing down the climate issue once and for all? Heh. Fuck off, pretender.

My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.

Are you trying to express something, Billy? Searching for some way of continuing to avoid real science while still believing that science is on your side? Which tenets might be jettisoned, and how might we justify doing so, but only in regard to climate? Tee hee hee? Oh dear, oh dear, our discussion has gone off the rails. How might we get it back? Please don't suggest that Billy might help get it back on the rails by answering the questions which have been asked of him repeatedly, or by explaining why he thinks that the questions are not valid or pertinent. No. Billy is not the problem. The problem is the lesser Others. They must be fixed. Billy, I know you're very upset about the requirements of science. You seem to be taking it personally, and it's almost as if you feel that I invented them, and that I did so just to spite you. The truth is that I'm just the messenger. You're really not angry with me, but with the idea of science not conforming to your feelings and wishes. J

Dipshit, were discussing climate, which, by definition, includes time as a factor. False. It's generally considered to be 30 years. For someone who is claiming to have science on his side, you sure are sloppy and imprecise in your use of words, and in your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of your opponents' positions. No one has claimed, fuckhead, that a 15 year cooling streak would mean that humans are not contributing to warming. Rather, it would mean that any hypothesis which predicted warming during that timeframe had been falsified. Youre playing the standard stupid fucking games of equivocation. See, this is why I asked the specific questions that I asked -- so that dishonest assholes like you can't switch between hypotheses and evidence at will. Your dishonesty is the reason that you won't answer the questions, but keep hoping that you'll be able to make us forget what the questions were. You're attempting to bypass the scientific requirements. You're attempting to substitute pseudoscience for actual science. J

I’m not living in 1995, douchebag. I’m simply recognizing the reality that there was a hiatus. I haven’t claimed that its currently happening, so don’t try to assign me that position, you dishonest twat. And I didn’t invent the term “hiatus.” It was a term used by the alleged “consensus” scientists and their governmental organizations during the many years that they were fretting about it and panicking about not being able to explain or account for it. Your attempts to downplay it or erase it won’t change the fact that it was a significant worry to the governmental climate organizations, and that a great deal of effort went into damage control. Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it, and it wasn’t resolved just because a couple of government spokespersons announced that, hey, how about we were all mistaken, it never happened even though it was official consensus science, so now the new official position is that it wasn’t a big deal at all, even though the scientists aren’t going along with that? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

OMG, did manmade global warming climate change emergency crisis doom cause those fires, Billy? Is it settled science? Should the deniers be thrown into the fires?

It's cute that climate fools are attempting to match their little actions to their words, but they miss the point entirely. We need punishments now. Voluntarism? Choosing to make one's deeds consistent with one's professed beliefs? Heh. Silly children. No. Michael Mann needs to be put in charge. He's the left's most expert expert on climate, and therefore also an expert on politics, economics, philosophy and every fucking thing else. Climate knowledge trumps all other knowledge. Your freedom needs to end. You need to experience pain. You need to obey. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/nov/09/doomism-new-tactic-fossil-fuel-lobby

Man-made climate change dunnit, it's settled science, 97% of climate scientists agree, you need to be punished, here's some tasty steamed octopus... Venice ‘on its knees’ after second-worst flood ever recorded By COLLEEN BARRY and LUCA BRUNO9 minutes ago VENICE, Italy (AP) — The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage... https://apnews.com/2e212a874a064ce4af63dc3ffda0258e

Wow, it's really cool to see Billy expressing curiosity, doubt, and critical thinking. Of course, the same question wouldn't occur to him if MSK had claimed that Global Warming Doom caused the fires, but selective curiosity is better than no curiosity. J

Little brainwashed Greta has turned down an award from leftists because they're not being leftist enough for her. Billy, you ought to enjoy this: She demands that the leftists act in accordance with what "the science" says is needed to combat global warming. Tee hee hee! She actually said "the science." "The science" says that we need socialism, and we need it now, or we're all going to die in 27 days. "The science" said so! Don't be a science denier. Tee hee heeeeeeee!!!! Greta Thunberg Rejects Climate Award, Rips Countries That Gave It To Her By James Barrett DailyWire.com Facebook Twitter Mail Teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg, who dominated headlines last month after her speech to the U.N. declaring that we are “in the beginning of a mass extinction,” was offered an award this week from the Nordic Council for “breathing new life into the debate surrounding the environment and climate at a critical moment in world history.” But on Tuesday, the 16-year-old told the council that they could keep their climate prize and issued an ultimatum: she will not accept an award from them until they move on from “bragging” and using “beautiful words” to acting “in accordance with what the science says is needed” to combat global warming. 00:27 / 01:15 Thunberg issued her official rejection of the award and rebuke of the council via an Instagram post Tuesday. The council has since confirmed that she indeed turned down their prize, which is worth a little over $50,000. “I have received the Nordic Council’s environmental award 2019. I have decided to decline this prize,” wrote Thunberg. Noting that she’s traveling through California and thus unable to deliver her message in person, the celebrity activist wrote out her rejection speech. “I want to thank the Nordic Council for this award. It is a huge honour,” she wrote. “But the climate movement does not need any more awards. What we need is for our politicians and the people in power start to listen to the current, best available science.” Thunberg then specifically called out the Nordic countries for what she characterized as their self-congratulatory hypocrisy. “The Nordic countries have a great reputation around the world when it comes to climate and environmental issues,” she said. “There is no lack of bragging about this. There is no lack of beautiful words. But when it comes to our actual emissions and our ecological footprints per capita — if we include our consumption, our imports as well as aviation and shipping — then it’s a whole other story.” She then got more specific, hitting the Nordic nations for not doing enough to eliminate fossil fuels: “In Sweden we live as if we had about 4 planets according to WWF and Global Footprint Network. And roughly the same goes for the entire Nordic region. In Norway for instance, the government recently gave a record number of permits to look for new oil and gas. The newly opened oil and natural gas-field, ‘Johan Sverdrup’ is expected to produce oil and natural gas for 50 years; oil and gas that would generate global CO2 emissions of 1,3 tonnes.” “The gap between what the science says is needed to limit the increase of global temperature rise to below 1,5 or even 2 degrees — and politics that run the Nordic countries is gigantic. And there are still no signs whatsoever of the changes required,” she continued. “The Paris Agreement, which all of the Nordic countries have signed, is based on the aspect of equity, which means that richer countries must lead the way. We belong to the countries that have the possibility to do the most. And yet our countries still basically do nothing.” She closed with one of her trademark ultimatums. “So until you start to act in accordance with what the science says is needed to limit the global temperature rise below 1,5 degrees or even 2 degrees celsius, I — and Fridays For Future in Sweden — choose not to accept the Nordic Councils environmental award nor the prize money of 500 000 Swedish kronor,” she concluded. As reported by CNN, the Nordic Council confirmed in a news release Tuesday that Thunberg did indeed reject their award. Dressing down world leaders has become Thunberg’s modus operandi. In late September, the climate alarmist issued a similar statement to the United Nations which painted an apocalyptic picture of the world and included digs about the leaders being “not mature enough” to be honest about the dire situation. “My message is that we’ll be watching you,” she said in a speech that went viral, in part due to critics pointing to its hyperbolic claims. “This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”

For the sake of tidiness, I'm reposting this post here: In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way: What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences? Here are the questions: How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified? Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed? Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes? More to come. But, please, start with the above. J

I think we've learned that climate isn't an important issue. It's now much less interesting than Q, or, really, any other subject. It was THE shit. But now? Meh. J

This old piece popped up for me today. Truth: "There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious." ----- Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. iStockphoto 7.3K1.1K By JAY RICHARDS Published on April 19, 2017 • 168 Comments Jay Richards This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as muchearly on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage. If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists. How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink? Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternativesto their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger. We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored. So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery. (1) When different claims get bundled together Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet and Newfoundland become a popular place to tan: That wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause. There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four claims are often bundled together. So, if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s dishonest. When well-established claims are tied with other, more controversial claims, and the entire bundle is labeled “consensus,” you have reason for doubt. (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data. When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious. (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence. Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this almost two centuries ago. The power of the majority in American society, he wrote, could erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science. Indeed, the quickest way for scientists to put their careers at risk is to raise even modest questions about climate doom (see here, here and here). Scientists are under pressure to toe the party line on climate change and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion. (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus. It becomes, instead, another reason for doubt. Those who follow the climate debate have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here for example). (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them. Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus. (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article. (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, needs time to grow. Scientists have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, and repeat experiments (where possible). They need to reveal their data and methods, have open debates, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they can come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus — when they claim a consensus that has yet to form — this should give everyone pause. In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.” Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history. He claimed that the debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny was indeed rotten. (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory. You can’t rerun past climate to test it. And the headline-grabbing claims of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that don’t match reality. These models get their input, not from the data, but from the scientists who interpret the data. This isn’t the sort of evidence that can provide the basis for a well-founded consensus. In fact, if there really were a consensus on the many claims around climate science, that would be suspicious. Thus, the claim of consensus is a bit suspect as well. (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You should wonder: “Which ones?” Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is a weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector. (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies Imagine hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be set up to reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe. We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in December 2015. Expect something at least as zany at the March for Science. Now, none of this disproves climate doom. But it does describe a setting in which truth need not appear. And at the least, when policy effects are so profound, the evidence should be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be wary. (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible Do I really need to elaborate on this point? (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion. To adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.

She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom. J

Yes. The issue is so important, and such a scary threat, that we can’t wait for stupid old fashioned true science to be practiced. We have to use the new special emergency “science.” You can’t expect consistency. 9 to 16 years of unpredicted, unexplained “pause” or “hiatus”? Heh, an insignificant blip. 1 year of arctic melt? Ha! See? Incontrovertible proof of the Doom! We need to practice such double standards, and proudly, because, as MSK said in the above, the survival of humanity is at stake! J

Hey, Billy, did you watch any of the DoomFest on CNN? Population control and lists upon lists of punishments. Yay! Fun stuff. Plus Uncle Joe got a bloody eye. Biden's eye fills with blood during CNN climate town hall by Julio Rosas & Joseph Simonson | September 04, 2019 08:39 PM Former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to have a blood vessel burst in his left eye while participating in CNN's town hall on climate change. A broken blood vessel in the eye, also known as a subconjuctival hemorrhage, can be caused by several things, including high blood pressure, bleeding disorders, blood thinners, or even excessive straining. Biden, 76, has long been plagued by health issues. In 1988, he suffered an aneurysm that burst and required him to undergo emergency surgery. The then-senator was so close to death that a Catholic priest began preparing to administer the sacrament of last rites. Months later, surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it burst. Biden then took a seven-month leave from the Senate following the surgery. Describing the operation, he once said, “They literally had to take the top of my head off.” Jill Biden said in her recently released autobiography Where the Light Enters that, at the time, she feared her husband would never be the same. "Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn't survive surgery," she wrote. "He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech." Doctors removed a benign polyp during a colonoscopy in 1996. In 2003, Biden had his gallbladder removed. He suffers from asthma and allergies and takes a prescription drug to lower his cholesterol. He has also taken medication for an enlarged prostate. Biden hasn’t disclosed his medical history since 2008, when doctors found he had an irregular heartbeat. Biden has also raised eyebrows for the increasing number of verbal blunders he has made so far on the 2020 campaign trail, the schedule of which has been markedly lighter than his main rivals. Those close to Biden nevertheless maintain that he is "a picture of health," according to a former aide who spoke to the Washington Examiner in April. Were he to win the 2020 presidential election, he would be the oldest president ever to be inaugurated.