Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Tiberius]

Why can you never come out and say "I don't know"?

 

We're all still waiting with bated breath for this one.

I do say that sometimes. But asked a very childish question. You want me to explain th entire system of progressive taxation? Ok, I've got time to do that. Children ask questions like that.

 

And you really are waiting on that? That's funny and pathetic. I'll get back to that one later, keep waiting

[B-Man]

Here's One Way to Reach Scientific Consensus

 

Earlier this week, I posted about Dr. James Enstrom’s successful settlement of his lawsuit against UCLA. Long a dissenter against environmentalist scare-mongering, Dr. Enstrom sued UCLA officials after they fired him shortly after Dr. Enstrom discovered that new California regulations of diesel emissions were based on junk science advanced by a scientist with a fraudulent degree — a doctorate purchased from the fictional “Thornhill University.” Dr. Enstrom also discovered that the scientific review panel tasked with reviewing this science was stocked with ideologues who’d long overstayed mandatory term limits.

The case was hard-fought, with the university filing two motions to dismiss, followed by lengthy and grueling discovery. While the issues were largely constitutional (did the university fire Dr. Enstrom because of his constitutionally protected speech?), the constitutional dispute was motivated by a sharp “scientific” disagreement over the health danger of diesel particulate. I use the scare quotes because UCLA’s actions hardly reflected scientific ideals. Here’s an interesting excerpt from a deposition with Dr. Enstrom’s dean at the time of his termination (the questioner is an ACLJ lawyer):

Q: Okay. Do you have a general knowledge with regard to Dr. Enstrom’s research regarding diesel particulate matter?

A: Very general.

Q: Okay. What is your understanding with regard to his research . . . ?

A: My understanding is that Dr. Enstrom does not believe that diesel particulate is as injurious to the public health as does the mainstream scientific opinion.

Q: Okay. Do you understand that that’s based on his research?

A: I don’t know what his opinion is based on.

Q: And are you one who holds the mainstream opinion in that regard?

A: Yes.

Q: And what is your conclusion based on in that regard?

A: My conclusion is that diesel particulate does cause injury to human health.

Q: I’m sorry. I asked what is it based on? What is that opinion based on?

A: My opinion is based on science.

Note what happened here. The Dean of the UCLA School of Public Health admits that she only had “very general” knowledge of a dissenting scientist’s research — so general that she doesn’t know what his conclusions were based on, but still confidently declares her allegiance to the mainstream. Her opinion, you see, is based on “science,” while she has no idea how Dr. Enstrom — a researcher in her own school — came up with his conclusions. This is exactly why the public should be suspicious of arguments based largely on appeal to “consensus” or the “mainstream.” Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

[Chef Jim]

I do say that sometimes. But asked a very childish question. You want me to explain th entire system of progressive taxation? Ok, I've got time to do that. Children ask questions like that.

 

And you really are waiting on that? That's funny and pathetic. I'll get back to that one later, keep waiting

Yup. You said you'd respond and I'm holding you to that. So holding you to your word is pathetic. Question for you <uh oh> why is holding someone to their word pathetic?

[Azalin]

Yup. You said you'd respond and I'm holding you to that. So holding you to your word is pathetic. Question for you <uh oh> why is holding someone to their word pathetic?

I'll field that one for him:

 

I don't know.

[Tiberius]

Yup. You said you'd respond and I'm holding you to that. So holding you to your word is pathetic. Question for you <uh oh> why is holding someone to their word pathetic?

On a message board??

I'll field that one for him:

 

I don't know.

Oh, maybe you can sanction me....

[Chef Jim]

On a message board??

 

Yes on a message board. Why is here any different? I'd say you've lost all credibility if you had any to begin with.

[Tiberius]

Yes on a message board. Why is here any different? I'd say you've lost all credibility if you had any to begin with.

Ok, I have no credibility here

 

Next question...

[OCinBuffalo]

As you demonstrate perfectly with your implication that an incomplete theory of gravity (it has major holes in it) equates to denial that gravity exists. In your little !@#$ of a world, all research into gravity should cease, since a consensus exists.

 

And we understand more about gravity than we do the climate.

And it's this very lack of understanding that has prevented me from getting the flying car I was promised, by Discover magazine, and by the book on Future Science I got at The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago when I was a child(and going down in the coal mine there remains my favorite museum thing...I highly recommend it, if it's still there)

 

As you all can imagine, I am and have remained livid. I want my flying car delivered yesterday. It was spec'ed at the very least as a Landspeeder from Star Wars, but could also fly above treetops, buildings, etc. I don't want to hear any more excuses about how we don't understand gravity. I was supposed to take delivery of my car years ago.

 

Another "scientific" prediction, that was so mainstream...they actually assumed the applied engineering as so nominal that that flying cars would be commercially pervasive by last decade.

 

Please tell me more about prediction and consensus. Then tell me that there can only be 2 reasons why I don't have my flying car, conspiracy or payoffs, because faulty/lacking science cannot be the reason. Then tell me I'm being stupid and hypocritical, for merely demanding what I was promised.

 

All the excuses in the world don't matter, because empirically, I don't have my flying car, and the only reason I don't: we don't fully understand gravity.

 

And, as Tom said: we understand even less about climate than gravity. I don't have my flying car....yet I'm supposed to buy into Global Warming at face value?

 

No. Common sense says give me my flying car, something you predicted 30 years ago(along with the ice age, I remember the cover of Time Magazine with the US attack submarine stuck...on top of the ice) and then we'll talk about your new "predictions".

 

 

Here's One Way to Reach Scientific Consensus

 

Earlier this week, I posted about Dr. James Enstrom’s successful settlement of his lawsuit against UCLA. Long a dissenter against environmentalist scare-mongering, Dr. Enstrom sued UCLA officials after they fired him shortly after Dr. Enstrom discovered that new California regulations of diesel emissions were based on junk science advanced by a scientist with a fraudulent degree — a doctorate purchased from the fictional “Thornhill University.” Dr. Enstrom also discovered that the scientific review panel tasked with reviewing this science was stocked with ideologues who’d long overstayed mandatory term limits.

The case was hard-fought, with the university filing two motions to dismiss, followed by lengthy and grueling discovery. While the issues were largely constitutional (did the university fire Dr. Enstrom because of his constitutionally protected speech?), the constitutional dispute was motivated by a sharp “scientific” disagreement over the health danger of diesel particulate. I use the scare quotes because UCLA’s actions hardly reflected scientific ideals. Here’s an interesting excerpt from a deposition with Dr. Enstrom’s dean at the time of his termination (the questioner is an ACLJ lawyer):

Q: Okay. Do you have a general knowledge with regard to Dr. Enstrom’s research regarding diesel particulate matter?

A: Very general.

Q: Okay. What is your understanding with regard to his research . . . ?

A: My understanding is that Dr. Enstrom does not believe that diesel particulate is as injurious to the public health as does the mainstream scientific opinion.

Q: Okay. Do you understand that that’s based on his research?

A: I don’t know what his opinion is based on.

Q: And are you one who holds the mainstream opinion in that regard?

A: Yes.

Q: And what is your conclusion based on in that regard?

A: My conclusion is that diesel particulate does cause injury to human health.

Q: I’m sorry. I asked what is it based on? What is that opinion based on?

A: My opinion is based on science.

Note what happened here. The Dean of the UCLA School of Public Health admits that she only had “very general” knowledge of a dissenting scientist’s research — so general that she doesn’t know what his conclusions were based on, but still confidently declares her allegiance to the mainstream. Her opinion, you see, is based on “science,” while she has no idea how Dr. Enstrom — a researcher in her own school — came up with his conclusions. This is exactly why the public should be suspicious of arguments based largely on appeal to “consensus” or the “mainstream.” Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

 

And I ask: where is the conspiracy?

 

A conspiracy is not required for behavior like this to occur. People are suggestible. Advertising proves this. Hell, there's an = chance of Lois Lerner/IRS employees/Treasury acting on their own is their is receiving instructions from the WH. It makes no difference in the outcome. In either case, the "leader" set the agenda, and it was acted upon.

 

Did someone "get" to this Dean, and force her to answer these questions in such a ridiculous manner? Does she sit in on the weekly "GW conspiracy's PR/Public Information strategy" call?

 

No!

 

"Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism." may be true, but I offer other, more likely and passive, explanations: laziness, malfeasance, fear.

 

IF the Dean had been diligent, and not lazy, she'd know Enstrom's work. After all, how the F is a competent Dean not fully aware of their employee's work? Which leads us to malfeasance: she has a responsibility to be fully versed in her entire college's work on behalf of the university. At the very least, her understanding is supposed to be better than "general". And of course, the easiest explanation for why she shirked her duty? Fear. What if Enstrom is right? Now she's got a shitload of problems she doesn't want. Now she's got to defend her employee. Now she's got to deal with the pitchfork and torches people. Now she's got to do media explaining herself, and every single decision she's ever made, because the media is now out for her blood. It's far better to essentially ignore Enstrom, and hope his work comes to nothing.

 

When it didn't? She was limited to a single option: fire Enstrom, and hope for the best, because even losing his HR case is better than going against the "consensus".

 

All of this? It is far easier to accept, and much more plausible...than conspiracy.

Edited March 15, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Chef Jim]

Ok, I have no credibility here

 

Next question...

Ok. Here goes. Are you going to respond to GG's in great detail?

[Tiberius]

Ok. Here goes. Are you going to respond to GG's in great detail?

I thought you said I have no credibility and now you are dying for me to respond? You are a fruit loop

[DC Tom]

I thought you said I have no credibility and now you are dying for me to respond? You are a fruit loop

 

Because you have no credibility, and it's entertaining as hell when you demonstrate it.

[4merper4mer]

And it's this very lack of understanding that has prevented me from getting the flying car I was promised, by Discover magazine, and by the book on Future Science I got at The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago when I was a child(and going down in the coal mine there remains my favorite museum thing...I highly recommend it, if it's still there)

 

As you all can imagine, I am and have remained livid. I want my flying car delivered yesterday. It was spec'ed at the very least as a Landspeeder from Star Wars, but could also fly above treetops, buildings, etc. I don't want to hear any more excuses about how we don't understand gravity. I was supposed to take delivery of my car years ago.

 

Another "scientific" prediction, that was so mainstream...they actually assumed the applied engineering as so nominal that that flying cars would be commercially pervasive by last decade.

 

Please tell me more about prediction and consensus. Then tell me that there can only be 2 reasons why I don't have my flying car, conspiracy or payoffs, because faulty/lacking science cannot be the reason. Then tell me I'm being stupid and hypocritical, for merely demanding what I was promised.

 

All the excuses in the world don't matter, because empirically, I don't have my flying car, and the only reason I don't: we don't fully understand gravity.

 

And, as Tom said: we understand even less about climate than gravity. I don't have my flying car....yet I'm supposed to buy into Global Warming at face value?

 

No. Common sense says give me my flying car, something you predicted 30 years ago(along with the ice age, I remember the cover of Time Magazine with the US attack submarine stuck...on top of the ice) and then we'll talk about your new "predictions".

 

 

And I ask: where is the conspiracy?

 

A conspiracy is not required for behavior like this to occur. People are suggestible. Advertising proves this. Hell, there's an = chance of Lois Lerner/IRS employees/Treasury acting on their own is their is receiving instructions from the WH. It makes no difference in the outcome. In either case, the "leader" set the agenda, and it was acted upon.

 

Did someone "get" to this Dean, and force her to answer these questions in such a ridiculous manner? Does she sit in on the weekly "GW conspiracy's PR/Public Information strategy" call?

 

No!

 

"Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism." may be true, but I offer other, more likely and passive, explanations: laziness, malfeasance, fear.

 

IF the Dean had been diligent, and not lazy, she'd know Enstrom's work. After all, how the F is a competent Dean not fully aware of their employee's work? Which leads us to malfeasance: she has a responsibility to be fully versed in her entire college's work on behalf of the university. At the very least, her understanding is supposed to be better than "general". And of course, the easiest explanation for why she shirked her duty? Fear. What if Enstrom is right? Now she's got a shitload of problems she doesn't want. Now she's got to defend her employee. Now she's got to deal with the pitchfork and torches people. Now she's got to do media explaining herself, and every single decision she's ever made, because the media is now out for her blood. It's far better to essentially ignore Enstrom, and hope his work comes to nothing.

 

When it didn't? She was limited to a single option: fire Enstrom, and hope for the best, because even losing his HR case is better than going against the "consensus".

 

All of this? It is far easier to accept, and much more plausible...than conspiracy.

That is quite the long winded way to whine over being unable to afford a Fleer jet.

[B-Man]

One of the real scandals here–the US government spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fund poorly-done scientific research, but only if it supports an "approved" conclusion is at last getting some attention. Dr. Judith Curry is one of the world’s most respected climate scientists. At her web site, Dr. Curry notes a paper on how politics and finance affect the climate “consensus.”

"I have long been concerned about the role of IPCC in torquing the direction of climate science and promoting groupthink. I spotted a link on twitter to this very interesting paper, that has clarified my thinking on this issue."

 

 

 

Causes and consequences of the climate science boom

William Butos and Thomas McQuade

 

Abstract. Scientific disciplines, like economies, can and do experience booms and busts. We document a boom in climate science, sustained by massive levels of funding by government entities, whose scientific direction is set by an extra-scientific organization, the IPCC, which has emerged as a “big player” in the scientific arena, championing the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. We note the difficulties in obtaining definitive empirical clarity due to the complex nature of climate, the feedback between the effects of the IPCC’s advocacy and the government’s willingness to fund the science, the ideological and political agendas at play, the dangers to the integrity of scientific procedure in the context of ideological bias, and the poor performance of the “crony capitalist” enterprises that have grown on the back of politicized science.

Forthcoming in the Independent Review.

 

 

 

There is much more at the link, including this:

 

Science, in rare cases, is also susceptible to another sort of Big Player: one with the ability to portray a favored hypothesis as settled, consensus scientific knowledge even in the absence of a substantial body of confirming evidence. The IPCC has taken on that Big Player role in climate science.

 

 

You can see why the alarmists have gotten hysterical, going so far as to threaten to jail those who point out the flaws in their data and reasoning.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited March 16, 2015 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

One of the real scandals here–the US government spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fund poorly-done scientific research, but only if it supports an "approved" conclusion is at last getting some attention. Dr. Judith Curry is one of the world’s most respected climate scientists. At her web site, Dr. Curry notes a paper on how politics and finance affect the climate “consensus.”

"I have long been concerned about the role of IPCC in torquing the direction of climate science and promoting groupthink. I spotted a link on twitter to this very interesting paper, that has clarified my thinking on this issue."

 

 

 

 

 

There is much more at the link, including this:

 

 

You can see why the alarmists have gotten hysterical, going so far as to threaten to jail those who point out the flaws in their data and reasoning.

 

 

 

 

.

She just reached those conclusions because she was paid to do so

[KD in CA]

She just reached those conclusions because she was paid to do so

 

Gee....sounds familiar.

[3rdnlng]

Look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane ... No, it's two planes!

Two taxpayer-funded planes, that is. And on those two planes last Thursday were two occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, jetting across country to the same destination -- L.A.

Separate planes. Your money.

Ready for the pain?

You're going to need a No. 2 pencil and scrap paper for this.

Estimates are that Air Force One costs about $206,000 per hour to operate. You could go on Priceline right now and book a round-trip itinerary from Boston to LAX for between $500 and $1,000 total. For what it costs taxpayers to ferry the POTUS, one-way, to Jimmy Kimmel for the all-crucial mission of reading "mean tweets," you could book 1,000 round-trip flights from Boston to Los Angeles.

And since FLOTUS took to the skies on her own plane to dance on "Ellen," you might want to double that.

Oh yeah, add in Marine One, and two separate motorcades, security, etc.

And because they need to do it all again in order to get back to D.C. ... double that.

If you did the math, you know the result. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent in a handful of hours in one day so that the first couple could travel, separately, in opulence across the country. And all to get their Hollywood cool on to impress people in circles where fist-bumps matter.

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/03/16/obamas-fly-to-la-same-day-separate-jets/?subscriber=1

Think of the carbon footprint here and ask if you really think that Obama's warnings about global warming are anything other than a power grab.

[Azalin]

Think of the carbon footprint here and ask if you really think that Obama's warnings about global warming are anything other than a power grab.

 

 

It could simply be a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'. He's the president, after all. You know, a ruling class privilege sort of thing.

[Tiberius]

 

Think of the carbon footprint here and ask if you really think that Obama's warnings about global warming are anything other than a power grab.

 

Yep, the lame duck power grab!

[DC Tom]

 

It could simply be a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'. He's the president, after all. You know, a ruling class privilege sort of thing.

 

Plus...the president doesn't really get to determine how he travels. He probably has little say in where and when, as well. There's a very large bureaucracy devoted to that.

[Azalin]

 

Plus...the president doesn't really get to determine how he travels. He probably has little say in where and when, as well. There's a very large bureaucracy devoted to that.

 

I'd be surprised if there isn't a very large bureaucracy devoted to determining what his meals will be.