So if Bill Nye is right, that without human influence our climate would now be like the little ice age of the 1750’s. Thus isn’t it therefore a *good* thing that humans have (supposedly) prevented that with slight warming via our CO2 emissions?
The cold is clearly more deadly than the Roman and MWP “climate optimum” periods that were warmer than today.
Twisted, political, pseudoscientific and zealotry ideology from the “science” guy Bill Nye.
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Bill Nye the not-really-Science Guy was on Tucker Carlson tonight. Tucker tried time after time to get Nye to say how much of the change was due to humans … and time after time, Nye refused to say what his opinion was.
So Tucker got him to agree that the climate has always been changing.
Then, in response to the question as to “what the climate would be like if humans weren’t involved right now”, Bill Nye said (according to my own transcription):
NYE: “The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing. The use of pesticides in the Midwest would not be increasing because the pests are showing up sooner and staying around longer. The forests in Wyoming would not be…
View original post 174 more words
A MUST SEE interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, featuring Professor Judith Curry who has recently quit her position as the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Her reasoning is simple yet so very damaging and dangerous, not only to “climate science” but to the fate of all “sciences”. Her resignation is to do with, not only being vilified by colleagues for having a sceptical (scientific) view of “climate change”, but importantly the ongoing ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.
This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
The systemic failure self-perpetuates :
- Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
- How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935
The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.
MUST SEE interview between Tucker Carlson and Dr. Curry here:
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | Climatism
- Climate money: Monopoly science « JoNova (Judith Curry IPCC Update) | Climatism
- Climate Etc. – Dr Curry Website
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
For more than ten years, we’ve endured the shrill media headlines, the hyperbole from conservation organizations, and the simplistic platitudes from scientists as summer sea ice declined dramatically while polar bear numbers rose.
Now, just in time for International Polar Bear Day, there’s a video that deconstructs the scare. It runs about 8 minutes, written and narrated by me, produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon
Wow. Nature.org must be spewing. The actual scientific method being imposed upon them. Ouch.
From the Journal of Irreproducible Science – over 2/3s of researchers say they are unable to replicate study results
WUWT Reader “QQBoss” writes:
The BBC reports (shockingly), that the journal Nature is going to begin requiring a reproducibility checklist of authors, based on a survey performed last year where at least 70% of respondents (self-selected, of course) indicated that they were unable to reproduce expected results. As the ability to replicate studies is what allows science to demonstrate meaningfulness and continue moving the body of knowledge forward, it is surprising that it has taken this long for top of the line journals to more strongly encourage replication to establish validity.
“Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper,” says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.
But will they take the next step and more actively police published research and denote when it is not…
View original post 183 more words
“Science isn’t the problem. People are the problem…
“especially in the social sciences and humanities, are on the political left. This leads to groupthink and reduces the amount of scrutiny certain research receives and the debate it inspires. And it can bias every step of the research process. It can influence the choice of research questions, the way scales or questionnaires are worded, the specific outcomes measured, the decision to publish or not publish results, the amount of criticism the research receives in the peer-review process, the topics of selected research symposia at conferences, what projects receive grant funding, and so on.”
James Delingpole NAILED this corruption/politicisation/self-interested state of climate “science” ergo, perhaps many of the ‘pal-reviewed’ sciences, at the latest CPAC conference :
“If you’re a scientist, you must publish to support yourself and your family. And if you’re out there saying global warming is not a problem, you are not going to get a research grant. If you’re a politician, you know that if you can control carbon, you can control life.”
By Paul Homewood
Quillette, the self described platform for free thought, has an interview with Clay Routledge, a social psychologist and Professor of Psychology at North Dakota State University
It covers a number of topics, but two particular sections took my eye.
Q. Let’s turn to another topic, post-modernism. Do you think that critical theory or postmodernism will ever go away? There have been attempts to discredit postmodernism before (e.g. the Sokal Affair) but nothing seems to work. What should empirically minded academics do to counter the effects of these ideas?
“I am not sure it will ever go away. The basic idea has been around in different forms for a long time. Plus, part of the appeal of this kind of scholarship is that it approaches an important point. It just makes a dramatic turn in the wrong direction before it gets there. The important point…
View original post 464 more words
You need to perhaps read more on the topic of climate virtue-signalling 101…
The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/
By Andrew Bolt ~
First Peter FitzSimons hypes global warming. Then his wife, Lisa Wilkinson, fronts a weather report claiming the east coast is in for “extreme weather”. But that’s not how the Bureau of Meteorology describes it at all, because this is just more fake news.
…no one who is serious doubts that the dangers of climate change are real…
Wilkinson today fronts a segment predicting “extreme weather” – the new scare of the global warming movement:
— The Today Show (@TheTodayShow) February 26, 2017
Not in our two biggest cities, for a start. Check the Bureau forecasts above. We don’t even crack a century on the old scale.
View original post 208 more words
ENTER the worldwide rise of the “silent majority”.
Beware those of the political class, bureaucratic establishment and media elites who have been deafened by their literal silence over many years. Those days are over.
You have been warned.
In September 2015, Malcolm Turnbull drew the political dagger and thrust it into a sitting Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. There are plenty in the Liberal party that will never forgive Turnbull for his treachery, but there are legions more among the Australian voting public still ready to exact revenge.
Last week Tony Abbott appeared on Sky News in an interview with Andrew Bolt to launch a collection of essays called ‘Make Australia Right’.
But it wasn’t Tony’s promotional activities that incensed the soft-wet Turnbull followers within the Coalition, but rather the fact that their former leader had the temerity to talk about the subject that now dominates every backyard barbecue and suburban dinner party all over the Country: the insane and escalating cost of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target.
Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg occupy a fantasy world where they believe that their…
View original post 2,593 more words