Advertisements

DEATH OF A CLIMATE ICON : A Lesson For Researchers In Other Areas Who Have Failed To Stop The Invasion Of Politics Into Their Science

POLAR BEARS - Death Of A Climate Icon

POLAR BEARS – Death Of A Climate Icon | Climatism


“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire

“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
Albert Einstein

***

THE polar bear as an icon for Global Warming Climate Change is dead, because the distorted predictions made by Polar Bear ‘specialists’ were wrong.

THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas who have failed to stop the invasion of politics into their science.

*

TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :

*

THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has since released an excellent short video showing why the polar bear no longer serves as the icon of the climate change movement :

*

H/t Green Jihad

•••

POLAR BEAR related :

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

MUST READ : Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw – Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

GLOBAL WARMING GROUPTHINK SHEEP - CLIMATISM

Global Warming Groupthink ‘Siyanz’ | CLIMATISM


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.

*

Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

From American Thinker

By Norman Rogers

William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.

The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.”  The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.

Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.”  We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.

What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.

Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.

Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.

Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen.

Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.

The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.

Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.

Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.

There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

H/t WattsUpWithThat

•••

 

SEE also : 

Read the rest of this entry »


CLIMATE CHANGE : It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled

Quotation-Mark-Twain-It-s-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them CLIMATISM

MARK Twain explains why it’s so difficult to end the man-made climate change scam


“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen

*

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen

•••

H/t Gail in Aus

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, in a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.

Forward Prager Uni:

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

WATCH!

•••

SEE also :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

CLIMATISM Hot Links :

TEMPERATURE Related :

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated and continue on a monthly cycle! Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists don’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations. Please give generously!

Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


HOTTEST YEAR EVAHH : Fourth-Warmest Year on Record? The Devil’s in the Details

HOTTEST YEAR EVAHH - CLIMATISM.png


“A man does not sin by commission only, but often by omission.”
Marcus Aurelius

“Deception by an omission of the truth is as bad as a lie.”
― Jennifer Chiaverini

*

CLAIMS of the “hottest year ever” tell us more about climate change marketing and PR than they do, actual science.

IN our schizophrenic, 24 hour news cycle and the era of internet clickbait, it serves the Climate Crisis Industry and those invested in man-made climate alarmism to produce headlines of “the hottest year ever” in order to push their political and ideological agenda…

THE Guardian’s Dana Nuttercelli is no stranger to pushing the ideological wheelbarrow of “hottest year evahh” hysteria…

*

THANK god for old-school meteorologists like Weatherbell’s Joe Bastardi, who cut through the cheap, lazy, clickbait alarmism to provide a scientific understanding of what really makes up “hottest year ever” claims such that we can use this knowledge to better predict weather and climate, rather than simply feeding the global warming hysteria beast for political, moral and financial gains.

BIG Joe dissects the “hottest year” meme in a great piece out of the The Patriot Post that shows the devil really is in the detail …

*

Fourth-Warmest Year on Record? The Devil’s in the Details

Joe Bastardi · Jul. 30, 2018

I continue to examine the idea that relatively minute increases in water vapor brought on by cyclically warmed oceans are the reason for the earth’s warming. But the way warming is portrayed must be looked at closely. It is very real and adds to forecast problems, but as far as the hysteria you see whipped up in relation to mankind’s self-destructing, it’s just that to me — hysteria.

Let’s assume 2018 is the fourth-warmest on record. Most people live between 70°N and 70°S.

NCEP1

NCEP Temp Anomaly

Read the rest of this entry »


DISGRACE : Shameless Link Between Suicide And Climate Change, Circulating The Mainstream Media’s Echo Chamber

THE Death of Mainstream Media - Suicide blog CLIMATISM.png


SINCE Climatism reported on the lazy and disrespectful link between suicide and climate change two days ago, a study has now surfaced out of the warmist, Nature Climate Change…

*

NOT surprisingly, the mainstream media has jumped all over this single study like a pack of hungry wolves, in a blatant attempt to link their emotionally-charged climate change cause with the genuinely emotional and tragic issue of suicide.

“The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, concluded that projected temperature increases over the next few decades could lead to an additional 21,000 suicides in the United States and Mexico by 2050.”

Warming climate will likely boost suicide rates worldwide | Berkeley News

*

YET another study using the widely criticised UN IPCC CMIP5 climate models that do not accord with the stubborn observed reality of the current and inconvenient ~20 year global warming “pause”

CURRENT UN CMIP5 CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS Vs TEMPS

See : 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism

*

THE STUDY

PUBLISHED yesterday in the warmist journal, Nature climate change

*

THE studies “could, maybe, might” findings are based on the highest emissions scenario, RCP8.5, pushed out to the arbitrary, unaccountable and ‘sciencey’ date of 2050…

“We project that unmitigated climate change (RCP8.5) could result in a combined 9–40 thousand additional suicides (95% confidence interval) across the United States and Mexico by 2050, representing a change in suicide rates comparable to the estimated impact of economic recessions, suicide prevention programmes or gun restriction laws.”

THE study also took into account seasonal variation, levels of poverty, the news of celebrity suicides and even depressive social media commentary that can lead to more death…

“Analysis of depressive language in >600 million social media updates further suggests that mental well-being deteriorates during warmer periods.”

Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico | Nature Climate Change

*

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ECHO CHAMBER…

WHAT level of responsibility is the mainstream media itself willing to accept for stoking “global warming” fears – flogging every heatwave or extreme weather event leading to the collective mass hysteria played out on social media?

Read the rest of this entry »


CLIMATE SCIENCE : Who Are The Real “Deniers”?

Climatism GROUPTHINK SHEEP.png


“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 
– THE late, great Michael Crichton
***

ONE of the biggest problems with the “climate change” debate today is that so many have been irresponsibly and irreparably brainwashed by political memes; “the science is settled” and that there is a “consensus of scientists” who know with “97%” certainty that humans are destroying the planet thanks to their excessive lifestyles and ‘frivolous’ use of cheap, reliable energy – fossil fuels.

THIS mantra has become so widespread and ‘believed’ that it has unfortunately robbed many of individual sense and reason and the ability, desire or need to investigate objectively information pertaining to the issue.

THEY are then no better than a cheerleading member of a herd protected by the belief system of the mob. A position demanded by the authority where enquiry is discouraged, thus discovery and advancement in knowledge and in ‘science’ is quashed!

*

A CLASSIC CASE IN POINT (repeated over and over and over again, everyday on social media):

MEET, anonymous “RetroBacklash“, Read the rest of this entry »


WHY Climate Science Is A Textbook Example Of Groupthink

REMARKABLE essay. Nails the foundation stone that drives the global pandemic of ‘climate change’ hysteria. And it’s name is “groupthink”

Excerpts…

“Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action…
Ideological reinforcement where they end up endorsing positions far more extreme than the ones they started with…Safety in numbers.”

Watts Up With That?

In groupthink, organizations value consensus more than free thought. The emphasis on consensus leads to group polarization, in which a group’s positions become more extreme than any individual would come up with. Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action.

Guest post by Paul MacRae

A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:

How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. …  Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?

The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard…

View original post 2,459 more words