The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Jan 6, 2021.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That "calibration" idea simply doesn't work.

    There are too many disciplines involved, and there is no possibility of planning for what they would each need to produce in order to "conform".
     
  2. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    37,615
    Likes Received:
    9,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It reminds me of the non-GMO stuff. You slept that voodoo Pokemon something and you can charge 12 times original price.

    I think it's a great marketing gimmick
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure it does.
    There is no need for any such precision. When everyone is basing their data on fake data, all the data are fake.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except CO2, of course.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My Sarcasm Warning Indicator Panel is red all the way across.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Much more pathetic is claiming that laughter is whining.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the problem is people who believe, and claim, that they already do understand clouds, oceans, the sun, and all the other factors that caused all the preceding thousands of century-scale warming episodes well enough to dismiss every single one of them, both alone and in any possible combination, as being the principal causes of the 20th century warming, rather than CO2. That is astoundingly anti-scientific hubris.
     
    Jack Hays and Sunsettommy like this.
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Organizations. They are controlled politically.
    No. What is really ridiculous is ignoring the fact that these organizations are, for political reasons, taking a scientific position in their members' names with no mandate from their members to do so.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have explained why no such coordination is necessary. One fake data set that everyone relies on is enough.
    Garbage with no basis in fact. Was there a coordinated worldwide conspiracy to get economists to falsify their analyses of the pre-GFC world? Ot did they all just know which side of their bread was buttered?
    No, because you are the one who claimed the prospect of such punishments would keep climate scientists honest. That claim was false, by your own admission.
    The half-dozen editors at the prestigious corporate-owned peer-reviewed journals do just fine.
    But somehow what is true of economics is not true of climate science? Please.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not how it works.

    There are large numbers of datasets concerning all sorts of factors.

    What you are supposing is that they could all be aligned - like, Italian Chemists aligning with Japanese ocean measurement, NOAA atmospheric temperatures, NASA measurement of ground temperatures, etc., etc., etc.

    First of all, there is no way to know ahead of time what these independent datasets would have to include in order to match other datasets.

    Second, you would have to TOTALLY corrupt a major percentage of the entire world of science.

    And, you can NOT propose ANY way to do resolve either of those.

    Beyond that, you still haven't come up with anything that could possible justify TRYING to do that.


    Face it. You have NOTHING on this issue.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False. I'm the one who claims there is NO possibility of totally corrupting what amounts to a significant portion of the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, etc., etc. etc.) of the entire world, plus keep it a secret.

    I don't know where you went off track on that so wildly, but I don't care.

    How about just recognizing that you seriously stepped in it?

    I'd let it go at that.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it is.
    So what? They all rely on the fake NASA/NOAA temperature record.
    They do it themselves, because the fake NASA/NOAA record is considered the most authoritative.
    And no need.
    Which has self-evidently already been done in economics, and now in climatology.
    I already have. You are merely in denial.
    I explained very clearly why someone would do it.

    Face it. You have NOTHING on this issue.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,854
    Likes Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not? You claimed it was impossible because any scientists doing so would be disciplined in the marketplace of ideas. But they aren't. They are rewarded.

    I don't know where you went off track on that so wildly, but I don't care.

    How about just recognizing that you seriously stepped in it?

    I'd let it go at that.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, politics does not control the results of science.

    That idea doesn't even make sense.

    And, I have no idea what "organizations" you are talking about or what the heck you mean by "taking a scientific position in their members' names".
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No corruption (at least as the word is commonly defined) is necessary.
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please see Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. The scientists boast of achieving their political objectives.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's just false.

    There are all sorts of datasets created by scientists in various countries around the world.
    You have absolutely NO evidence of anything you've said in this ridiculous post of yours.

    You haven't pointed to ANY method for causing that corruption.

    And, the economics thing I posted demonstrates a contrast that also does NOT agree with your idea here. One university CAN select people who are in agreement with the position of that university.

    BUT, that example demonstrates that they can't cause alignment even across the USA, let alone around the world.
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe not.

    “NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to”
    Posted on March 29, 2021 by tonyheller
    The Guardian is always a great source of climate comedy. “No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine. A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to” No climate conspiracy: NOAA … Continue reading →

    Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments
    NOAA Temperature Adjustments Are Not Credible
    Posted on January 19, 2020 by tonyheller
    North American snow cover has been increasing during the snow season for the past fifty years. NorAm Fall NorAm Winter Canada is normally covered in snow during the winter, so the increase in North American snow cover is due to … Continue reading →

    Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments
    Understanding Temperature Adjustments
    Posted on April 24, 2018 by tonyheller
    The upper Midwest is not having a spring this year, but in the past they had many very warm springs. Climate scientists have been trying to convince people that early springs are a sign of global warming. Since it isn’t … Continue reading →
     
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's very much the case that science does affect policy. And, science SHOULD affect policy. Just think what it would mean if policy ignored science!!

    The IPCC depends on scientists from all over the world. It can't force those scientists to screw up their science. It DOES have a lot of clout in the political world, as it is a central source of science that is broadly agreed upon. Thus people do need to listen to the IPCC. There isn't a better source of what is broadly agreed by those who study the climate related sciences.

    If the IPCC were not present, it would be up to politicians to pick and choose who THEY think are reliable sources of science. There is NO CHANCE that would be better. The US congress proves over and over again that it is crap at picking what is valid science. Also, the IPCC has the advantage that it is world wide - so it is a common source that countries can point to in negotiations, rather than each nation having negotiators who have their own pet views of this issue.

    My bet is that without the IPCC, our congress would probably depend MORE on NASA and NOAA as single sources of climate science. As an organization, congress would not depend on Soon or other outliers.


    We know for sure that the IPCC CAN make mistakes. We've seen a few.

    More importantly, we've watched as those mistakes were brought to light, thus changing what is projected by the IPCC. We've seen that with hurricane projections and projections concerning the Atlantic current, for example. The IPCC is not immutable.

    Science ALWAYS makes mistakes. The design of science isn't such that it will be perfect, but that wrong ideas will be pruned as efficiently as humanly possible.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, here's the deal. NASA collects and analyzes data. That's their JOB.

    But, that isn't a conspiracy.

    What you have to show is that the scientists from around the world are all busily dry labbing their science to conform to the new NASA changes.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who do you believe got wrongfully rewarded?

    Nobody on this board should accept claims like yours without a cite identify what the hell you are talking about.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,028
    Likes Received:
    11,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't have a conspiracy of science of this magnitude without it being corrupt.

    You are claiming that scientists around the world are coming up with FAKE RESULTS in order to conform to some sort of pressure.
     
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was not a "mistake." Here's a good summary.
    Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
    Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
    by Judith Curry. Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
     
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I don't have to show anything like that. Groupthink, motivated reasoning and peer pressure suffice to explain it all.
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. Not fake results, but results they can rationalize are real. The human capacity to fool ourselves is immense; that's a different type of corruption.
     

Share This Page