|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 9, 2015 4:58:05 GMT
Rupert Darwall An Unsettling Climate Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate.Summer 2014 Climate-change science is “settled,” say proponents of anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming, or AGW: the earth is getting warmer, and human activities are the reason. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the United Nations in 1988, has issued five assessment reports since its founding. In its most recent, in 2013, the IPCC stated that it was now “95 to 100 percent certain” that human activities—especially fossil-fuel emissions—are the primary drivers of planetary warming. Frequent news reports—such as the story of the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a process that some scientists say is irreversible—seemingly confirm these conclusions. And yet, highly credentialed scientists, including Nobel Prize–winning physicist Ivar Giaever, reject what is often called the “climate consensus.” Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of the group’s statement that evidence of global warming was “incontrovertible” and that governments needed to move immediately to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Sixteen distinguished scientists signed a 2012 Wall Street Journal article, in which they argued that taking drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy—an effort that would have major effects on economic growth and quality of life, especially in the developing world—was not justified by observable scientific evidence. And, like Giaever, they objected to the notion of a climate consensus—and to the unscientific shutting down of inquiry and the marginalization of dissenters as “heretics.” Most recently, renowned climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson stepped down from his post at a climate-skeptic think tank after he received hundreds of angry e-mails from scientists. He called the pressure “virtually unbearable.” www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 9, 2015 12:49:51 GMT
What we are watching is the collapse of Science. This board is concerned with claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming so look at these quotes with some areas redacted initially:
"When one is reading this report, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that once the government began advocating XXXXX reduction XXXXXXXXX it changed the way many investigators in this science perceived their obligations . Those who believed that XXXXX caused XXXXXX had always preferentially interpreted their data in the light of that hypothesis. Now they no longer felt obliged to test any hypothesis, let alone XXXXX. Rather, they seemed to consider their obligation to be that of “reconciling [their] study findings with current programs of prevention,” which meant the now official government recommendations. Moreover, these studies were expensive, and one way to justify the expense was to generate evidence that supported the official advice XXXXXX. If the evidence didn’t support the recommendations, then the task was to interpret it so that it did."
"The XXXXXXX hypothesis that suggests that a high XXXXXXX causes XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit, and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprise, XXXX XXXXXXX, and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest XXXXXX scam of the century."
AND
"When we speak of suppression of evidence, we are not referring to scientific conspirators carrying out a satanic plot to deceive the public. Instead , we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledge filtration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantial cumulative effect. Certain categories of evidence simply disappear from view, in our opinion unjustifiably."..........
....."In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded."
Do those quotes sound familiar at all? They are just a quick selection of many that I have come across - but they are not to do with 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. They are in totally different areas of science.
I believe that we are seeing the beginning of a new dark age, where data comes second to politics and personalities. If this continues the dire lack of ethics in higher authorities in academia and science and the lack of moral courage in the majority of scientists will lead to a complete breakdown in trust for science and the rise of charlatans who only have to convince the powerful.
So did anyone guess the areas of science that the quotes were taken from?
Here are the unredacted quotes:
"When one is reading this report, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that once the government began advocating fat reduction in the American diet it changed the way many investigators in this science perceived their obligations . Those who believed that dietary fat caused heart disease had always preferentially interpreted their data in the light of that hypothesis. Now they no longer felt obliged to test any hypothesis, let alone Keys’s. Rather, they seemed to consider their obligation to be that of “reconciling [their] study findings with current programs of prevention,” which meant the now official government recommendations. Moreover, these studies were expensive, and one way to justify the expense was to generate evidence that supported the official advice to avoid fat. If the evidence didn’t support the recommendations, then the task was to interpret it so that it did."
Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 1399-1405). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
"The diet heart hypothesis that suggests that a high intake of fat or cholesterol causes heart disease has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit, and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprise, food companies, and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century."
Perlmutter, David (2013-09-17). Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar--Your Brain's Silent Killers (p. 78). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
"When we speak of suppression of evidence, we are not referring to scientific conspirators carrying out a satanic plot to deceive the public. Instead , we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledge filtration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantial cumulative effect. Certain categories of evidence simply disappear from view, in our opinion unjustifiably."
"In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded."
Cremo, Michael (2011-01-28). Forbidden Archaeology (Kindle Locations 452-453). Torchlight Publishing Inc.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 9, 2015 15:45:25 GMT
I would have to agree. I would go so far as to say we are not getting there but are there already. Medical is where it is most obvious but the crap that is going on in AGW I've seen in spotted owls, coho salmon, sucker fish etc etc. Look what was done to the logging industry over the spotted owl when logging had nothing to do with their decline.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 10, 2015 3:54:16 GMT
I had a friend (deceased) who was a logger on the Olympic Peninsula. He said it was funny how the spotted owl was always found on private logging properties but not on the big company properties. I had a conversation with an environmentalist on the steps of the state capital. He said he didn't care if they cut the trees, he just didn't want the logging company to make a profit on it. I found this was typical of enviros in general. It is all about the politics, not the environment. Interesting that "97%" of the studies at the time said logging old growth was the problem. There were a few studies that said it was actually habitat encroachment by eastern barred owls. These were dismissed as paid for by big logging of course. Sound familiar?. Now that logging is dead, guess what? The decline is due to habitat encroachment by eastern barred owls. Who knew?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 10, 2015 14:31:20 GMT
Ayep.
|
|