The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

Wilie Soon is highly deprecated as a representative of ANYTHING about climate science.

Besides the well known weaknesses in his climate denier science, he's funded by the petroleum industry.

This is "cigarette science" all over again.

If there are real criticisms of the world consensus of scientists on climate change, deniers would NOT use Willie Soon as their go-to science. The very fact that he gets relied upon is a refutation.

 

The typical ad homs that only warmist/Alarmists can make, it is boring and fails to address the science claims.

Try better.

 

What I stated about Willie Soon is well documented.

And, the fact remains that HE is the one deniers boast about.

If there were truth on the side of deniers, they wouldn't put up with Willie Soon,

 

Translation: I can't attack his science research but call him names and make up claims about his funding sources.

You call people deniers which is a 20 year long falsehood since no one denies climate can change or that it has been warming for around 300 years now.

You have yet to address Dr. Soon's science report.....

 

Soon has been paid off and debunked multiple times.

The entire world of climatology, from NASA to NOAA to universities and science groups throughout America and beyond to every continent confirms that the post industrial warming is mostly anthropogenic.

Then, someone posts Soon!!

But, what you actually have to do is try to explain how the world of climatology is one big conspiracy theory. Because finding one guy with a history of being paid off and debunked is just laughably pathetic.

 

Soon, et al, two dozen as a matter of fact.

Peer-reviewed Research Contradicts the IPCC

And it was the would-be debunkers who ended up looking like fools.

I've always thought this was the best for highlighting the NYT's embarrassment.
Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead
2015 › 02 › 23 › greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead
the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist ... that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves

 

Right: you have apparently found it convenient to deprecate him in your response to a post that did not mention or even allude to him.

That is a long-debunked slander.

Silliness.

You mean the fake consensus that falsely claims scientists support scaremonger views they do not in fact support?

He doesn't get relied upon. You simply made that up. He's just one voice of many.

 

There are a lot of great comments in the link that shows what a bald faced liar the NYT and other Media groups are.

The funding attacks are so irrational and juvenile, it has to be because they know his research is good otherwise they could just ignore it.

 

You are batting ZERO......., the smears against Dr. Soon has long ago been addressed.

YOU are the one bringing up the Conspiracy babble....., not going down this desperate deflection path you are trying to create.

 

Here is a comment worth reading:

Kip Hansen
Editor

Reply to James Hein

February 23, 2015 9:36 pm

Reply to J Hein ==> You are correct. Those attacking Soon confuse general research grants with Conflict of Interest. A general research grant does not create a conflict of interest. Nothing produced by Soon would result in his financial gain….Southern Corp’s grants to Soon are not predicated on his various findings. Southern is an electric utility whose fortunes do not depend on Soon’s findings about the relationship between the Sun and the Climate or on his personal opinions on Climate Change and its causes.

LINK

 

Meanwhile the warmist/alarmist hypocrisy marches on:

Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!

LINK

 

You just aren't doing your research.

It's not up to ME to deprecate Willie Soon's "science" - that has already been done by serious climatologists.

 

By "the armist/alarmist" I assume you mean the vast majority of all scientists around the world who study climatology or branches of science that directly pertain to climatology.

Look. You've got a tiny minority view that is in no way unified within itself, as those who are claimed to be deniers do not hold any particular agreement.

AND, you have NO CHANCE of supporting YOUR notion that there is a world wide conspiracy.

 

Not a conspiracy, but a widespread error, as has often occurred.

 

"General research grants" by oil companies to specific individuals known to be virulent denialists is more than just suspicious. It's exactly what cigarette companies did, for example.

Besides, he's had significant trouble with his science.

 

If it were a "widespread error" it would have to permeate oceanography, chemistry, atmospheric sciences at all altitudes, measurement of temperatures on Earth, measurement of temperatures of Earth by satellite, study of the sun, study of records of ice cores, etc., etc., etc. The breadth of the sciences involved is major.

For the most part there is no possibility of these areas of study being affected by each other in a way that could allow the kind of error propagation you propose.

And, it wouldn't spread perfectly throughout the international world of science.

If you really do think there is a conspiracy of this magnitude, you need to explain the conspiracy - the methodology, the planning, the secrecy, the enforcement, the ability for it to cover politics throughout all first world nations, and why anyone would even bother.

And, you can't just point to the press. The press may be terrible at reporting science, but the press doesn't do the science.

 

There is no conspiracy, only error, and it need not be nearly as comprehensive as you claim to be effective. It need only be shared widely enough to threaten career damage to dissenters and justify the hype that has come to surround climate reporting.

 

First of all, we need to get beyond this idea that the press is a cause of the conspiracy you claim. Clearly, the press regularly screw up their science reporting. But, they have no way of affecting the science. Scientists from around the entire world are NOT deciding to screw up their papers in order to conform to crappy science reports from some segment of the press.

As for the systematic deprecation of science, I don't see any way for your claimed conspiracy not to be comprehensive, yet still be "effective".

Climate simply involves too many independent disciplines. Most papers that touch on climate don't even refer to climate change. There isn't some boundary line. There isn't a "climate change" version of each science discipline.

For example, NASA measurements of Earth's temperature are done in conjunction with the information they supply agriculture. Farmers use that data - it's a big deal. NASA can't screw that up in order to align NASA with some some climate change conspiracy. It just doesn't work that way.

 

You are the only one using the term "conspiracy" and I wish you would stop; it lowers the level of discussion. The great Gunnar Myrdal famously noted the susceptibility of academics to groupthink.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

Yes. For example, there is the Chicago school of economic theory.

But, you aren't proposing that.

You are proposing this "something" that crosses the numerous disciplines of science and has effect around the entire globe.

As I pointed out with the NASA agricultural data example, you want this "something" to permeate ALL science - since there isn't some bright line between science that might affect climatology and science that might not affect climatology.

 

No. It does not permeate all science, but it produces tortured chains of supposition to try to fit the data into a climate narrative.

 

I don't accept this, as denier results are directly counter to information from far too many fields of science.

Again, the depth and breadth of the required conspiracy is just far to much to accept when there is NO evidence of it.

Once again, you want to make a claim of "tortured logic" or whatever. But that is something that the vast preponderance of science throughout the world does NOT agree with.

You still have to defend the world wide, science wide conspiracy theory that is REQUIRED by the level of denial that you claim.

 

Jack, you cannot discuss this with outsiders, especially with people who weren't there and have no understanding of Academia.

That's one reason I don't teach.

These people don't understand that in order to be, um, you know, "competitive" universities set the standard of "Publish or Perish."

If you cannot or will not get published in scholarly journal, then you can never become a full-professor, much less a department head or chair, and you can forget about ever becoming a dean.

Naturally, when you create an artificial problem, you get artificial solutions.

The "solution" to Publish or Perish was the advent of more scholarly journals in which to get published. So, now, instead of having the traditional journal to have your work published, you have alternative journals.

How did universities respond to that? Simple. The standard is now "Cite or Perish."

It's not enough to be published. Now you have to be repeatedly cited by others in their desperate attempt to get published.

And so, outsiders just can't see.

As far as GroupThink in Academia, I can cite examples from now to the end of this year.

My favorite is the brilliant archeology professor from the University of Pennsylvania.

She's digging in northern Chile in the desert (but it wasn't desertified in the previous Glacial Period) and using Carbon-dating (the only method available and probably the only method that wouldn't take a huge chunk out of her research budget) she dates the site to 32,000 years.

The Land-Bridge Nutters lock arms and march in lock-step screaming, :We shall overcome! We shall overcome!"

They got her fired and black-listed her because she rocked the boat and dared challenge The Paradigm®.

She ended up teaching at a private high school in Pennsylvania.

The really sad thing is she was right all along and about 10 years after she died, some archeologists following up on her research and using 3 other dating methods in addition to Carbon-dating came up with a date of 35,000 years.

But, the Climate Nutters are just like them. You're not allowed to rock the boat.

This is their Legacy. If you take it away from them, what do they got? Nothing. And, yes, these people really are that vain and egotistical. They'll never admit they're wrong until they get put in their places, and even then they'll only grudgingly admit they're wrong.

But note that GroupThink is a big factor in getting published (or cited.)

 

Remember the canard that those who can't do, teach?

This is one of the ways that assure that canard stays a canard.

It's a way of insisting that if you can't do it, you aren't allowed to teach it.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" Jack has posted links to literally scores of peer-reviewed papers that refute the CO2-controls-climate narative.

"Serious" climatologists like Lyin' Michael Mann, who fraudulently disappeared the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and all the "serious" climatologists who jumped on the bandwagon and defended his gross scientific malpractice?