The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

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

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's an example that may be helpful. Right now I'm reading an old but very good book, Cornelius Ryan's A Bridge Too Far. It is an account of "Market Garden," the Allies' massive but unsuccessful airborne assault into the Netherlands in September 1944. From Field Marshal Montgomery on down, enthusiasm for the attack was overwhelming. Nonetheless there were doubters, who pointed to intelligence indicating stiffening German resistance in the area and, especially, the relocation of two SS Panzer divisions directly into the proposed "Market Garden" path. Those doubts were ignored or simply swept aside. There was no conspiracy against the doubters, only a firm general disinclination to entertain any view other than enthusiastic support for the attack. In the end the skeptics were justified by the outcome.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  2. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why I pushed the warmist/alarmists so hard to post cogent replies to articles I post to get the other shoe to drop on my bare feet, but it never happens as they dodge, ignore or belittle the author or the article itself.

    A perfect example was the terrible responses from them in the Where is the Climate Emergency? (LINK) thread I started, they refused to discuss the CONTENT of the article instead they attack the source, the Author or the blog in the end the article remains unchallenged.

    They have had 30 years to convince me but their childish and ignorant replies convinces me they just follow some propaganda based narrative while not knowing what they parrot so casually in detail thus easy to be made a fool of it.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. This is a demonstration of how a conspiracy simply doesn't work.

    There was no chance the kind of pressure being applied was going to change the science.

    And, the scientists doing the actual science raised the alarm - not one or two outliers but the broad community of scientists world wide.

    There really just isn't any way to create a lasting or effective conspiracy of the type being proposed.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What would it take to convince you that the surface of planet Earth is warming?
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm aware of Market Garden and I'd point out that there was resistance to Montgomery's idea from above him. It was considered highly risky. The question was whether the possibility of shortening the war was worth the risk.

    There was absolutely NO conspiracy in that decision.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, you are the only one using the word "conspiracy." It's a dishonest tactic. What Curry's essay highlights (and Lewin's book documents in great detail) is an effort by a determined group of scientists to acquire political influence by steering the IPCC process. In Lewin's book they explain how they did this in their own words.
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your post is incorrect. The only officer above Montgomery was Eisenhower, and he not only approved of Market Garden, he urged it. You need to learn before you opine.
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, what is being proposed IS a conspiracy. There is NO other term for it.

    Yes, the piece you posted documents an effort to conspire against science, to present results that are not supported by the actual underlying science.

    AND, it documents how that FAILED, because the broad community of scientists across the entire world called the alarm. They pointed out that the claims being made by the crooked IPCC folks of that time were not supported by the science.

    This case demonstrates why a world wide conspiracy of the type you propose simply can not succeed. The scientists contributing in the numerous fields of science that are involved in climatology were NOT going to alter their science and they weren't going to allow it to be misrepresented.

    It shows that the IPCC does not have that kind of power.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know Eisenhower approved Market Garden. I just pointed out that it was recognized as highly risky and that Market Garden didn't involve a conspiracy.
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not sure how you could have misunderstood so completely if you did in fact read the article. Those who sought to manipulate the IPCC process to "manufacture consensus" in Curry's phrase succeeded. They created a declaration for AGW that was well beyond what most IPCC members thought the evidence supported.
     
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The absence of a conspiracy is my point, not yours.
    Your claim of resistance to Montgomery "from above" is incorrect. Only Eisenhower was above Montgomery, and you have conceded he approved.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have NO idea how you plan to use this as an argument wrt climate change.

    Eisenhower definitely was concerned about the risk of the plans that Montgomery presented and gave Market Garden limited priority in terms of supplies. He had already killed various Montgomery proposals. One might suggest that there are limits to how often a boss can say no to an individual as key as Montgomery was to our allied forces success.

    Consenting to Montgomery's plan can not be claimed to be some sort of wholehearted support.

    I suggest getting back to climate change, a topic that has little or nothing in common with the decision to implement Market Garden.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you are pointing out that their FAILURE was not instantaneous.

    Their temporary "success" did not include changing the science being contributed by individuals and institutions around the world - the science the IPCC was still depending on. And, scientists from around the world raised the alarm and ended that.

    Maybe the lesson here is that 100% reliance on ONE organization is not a good approach, as one organization can have issues in how it operates - such as my example of the Chicago School of economics.

    But, with climate change it is just not all about the IPCC. They are significant, but they are only one organization. The denier position has to postulate uniform failure across the entire world wide field of sciences related to climatology.

    It has to include some method of countering the science and the scientists of the world - the body that has the track record of refusing to have their results misinterpreted, as documented by your cite.
     
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Eisenhower, fascinated by the audaciousness of the plan, not only gave his approval, but insisted that the operation take place at the earliest possible moment." A Bridge Too Far by Cornelius Ryan, p. 89. Let's have no more uninformed quibbling about the historical record.
    As for supplies, Market Garden was supported by the largest air armada of the war and the largest logistics effort since Normandy.
    Market Garden is instructive for climate change because it demonstrated the creation of a factually impaired consensus without a conspiracy.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your claim is the opposite of what happened, and is recounted by Curry. The AGW advocates captured the process and created a "consensus" well beyond the views of their colleagues.
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eisenhower is not a "consensus". He is an individual who made a decision.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point is that the position they manufactured FAILED.

    It was called out by the scientists working in the many fields of science related to climatology.

    Also, that has become more difficult today. At the time, there was little interest in or notice of climate change. They could get away with claims made in the realm of politics, as the audience was poorly informed.

    That's not true today. There is a high degree of awareness of our warming planet, including among those who are not involved in doing science.

    In fact, the topics of the IPCC are now seen as important enough that their work receives serious scrutiny.
     
  18. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He was a leader of a group of people who despite spoken reservations supported him on it.
     
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The consensus flowed downhill from Montgomery, and set aside all objections.
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. What is now climate orthodoxy was the position advocated by the AGW believers in the early IPCC. They won.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, lets say I have no objections to your Market Garden analysis and go from there.
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you agree a consensus based on a false premise can be created without a conspiracy.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't accept that notion at all.

    Today's IPCC documentation is not based on that earlier position that scientists objected to.

    And, the degree to which the two may coincide does not absolve the IPCC leadership of that era of mistakes made at that earlier time.

    The IPCC documentation today does represent a broad consensus of the numerous branches of science involved today. Gigantic scientific progress has been made. And there is broad agreement across all the related sciences that the fundamental issues documented by the IPCC represent the best of our understanding of what is happening.

    It's not rational to claim that the mistakes made in that early period invalidate what is agreed to be our understanding today.
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The central figures in the early IPCC did not object to anything. They manipulated the IPCC process to install AGW orthodoxy as the organization's "consensus" position. They did this to achieve and sustain political relevance. They succeeded.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't argued against that, nor have I bothered to do any research to confirm or counter your position on that.

    One of the difficulties is that there are really two different efforts going on, relatively merged as one.

    There is the science.

    There is the negotiation of policy response.

    One would hope that the policy negotiation is driven by well accepted science. But, that's problematic, as every country has its own internal politics, vested interests, economy, wealth, environmental concerns, etc.

    I think any analysis of the IPCC has to divide these issues. So far, I don't see validity in the claims that there is a conspiracy that is twisting the science.

    As for the policy response side, that is politics. Politics NEVER uniformly accepts science, because there are other issues and there are no absolutes. What is an optimal response for one country could be irrelevant to what is optimal for another. The same goes for what is possible. Plus, there are giant vested interests at play. The one certainty is that the overall result is not going to be optimal.

    So, negotiations related to policy response that include the IPCC are going to be relatively easy targets. But, the rest of the story is that there really is no other direction going on. Plus, any other direction is going to be just as politicized.

    I would also point out that the ONE group that has major economic interest in these negotiations is the collection around the fossil fuel industry. I don't see any other group that has greater possibility of gain or loss in this than does this group of countries and corporations. And, their political clout is gigantic, even in the USA.
     

Share This Page