Then it was Global Warming – again, in the 1990’s.
Then it was Anthropogenic Climate Change – when the scientific predictions on effects of carbon-forced Global Warming did not actually happen, thus disproving (or, as scientist say, falsifying: meaning it is conclusively proven to be false) the hypothesis of carbon-forced Global Warming.
Then it got out that much of these predictions were intentionally faked by a group of scientists who got money and fame from their false claims….
…and then people smartened up and began to tune out all this noise.
And here, I truly mean people: neither the politicians, journalists and their sycophants who would loose a lot if they admitted they got suckered in, nor the Cultural Marxists who saw the whole man-made doomsday scenario as an excellent opportunity to impose their brand of social engineering onto the rest of us.
But now that most people are ignoring the scientists and the journalists and only obeying the politicians because we have lost any semblance of accountability by elected representatives to their constituents in our society, what are poor scientists looking for the next grant-train to do?
How can they bully people into giving them more and more money when the people are no longer scared?
Gotta go bigger!!!
At least, that is the only plausible explanation I can think of for this Mail Online Headline:
Will a volcanic eruption destroy humanity? Scientists warn that world must begin preparing for explosive global catastrophe
Scientists at the European Science Foundation estimate there is a 5-10% probability of a large explosive volcanic eruption by the end of the century
They warn it could have global impacts that will devastate human society and send humanity back to a state that existed pre-civilisation
Experts have called upon world leaders to spend £2 billion a year to monitor volcanic activity and to increase the ability to respond
Yeah, sure – give ‘the scientists’ 4 Billion Dollars – or a volcano might just blow up in your neighbourhood, yeah, and you want to be prepared, right?
Because giving the money to scientists instead of leaving more of it in the taxpayer’s pocket so they can have reserves and be prepared for most kind of catastrophic events just makes much more sense: to those ‘scientists’.
Shame, such shame that some ‘scientists’ have turned into such blatant shake-down artists!
‘Today Earth is affected by fluctuations called the Milankovich cycles. There are three different Milankovich cycles, and they occur each 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years. Over the last one million years these cycles have caused ice ages every 100,000 years, and right now we are in the middle of a warming period that has so far lasted 11,000 years.
“Earth’s climate history is complex. With this research we can show that cycles like the Milankovich cycles were at play 1.4 billion years ago – a period, we know only very little about”, says Donald Canfield, adding:
“This research will also help us understand how Milankovitch cyclicity ultimately controls climate change on Earth.”
In the new scientific paper in the journal PNAS, the researchers report both geochemical and sedimentological evidence for repeated, short-term climate fluctuations 1.4 billion years ago. For example the fossilized sediments show how layers of organic material differed over time, indicating cycle changes in wind patterns, rain fall and ocean circulations.’
As most of you know, Mark Steyn is a defendant in a lawsuit by the possibly Canuckaphobic (judging by the disproportional number of Canadians among the victims of his lawfare) and reflexively litigious Dr. Michael Mann.
It’s been dragging on for a while, with no resolution in sight.
A few people who do not usually follow this debate have recently become aware of it and have asked me what it is all about. So, for them – and any others of you who are interested – here is a very brief recap of the story so far,
After all, when the pro-government-policy side of a ‘debate’ is the only one permitted to be discussed, we know we have a problem. And for all those claiming ‘scientific consensus’ – think Galileo…
And never forget that for Galileo’s voice to even be heard, Giordano Bruno had to first be immolated to pave the path!
Let’s hope that Mark Steyn will be remembered as the Galileo, and not the Giordano Bruno, of our generation.
Donna Laframboise is an investigative journalist who has investigated the IPCC’s claim that their findings are based solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. She has found that far from basing their findings on solid scientific studies, the IPCC heavily relied on so called ‘gray literature’, composed mainly from activist propaganda with a dash of government policy papers thrown in for good measure.
Disclosure: I was one of the citizen reviewers who volunteered to go through the IPCC’s references as part of the citizen’s audit Donna Laframboise organized and then reported in her book, ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate expert, and am acknowledged as such in the book.
What Donna Laframboise did was unique: rather than challenge the science behind the IPCC’s report or its conclusion, something which is difficult and open to dispute, she took the testable statement made by the IPCC regarding the sources on which they drew their conclusions. And, she proved that the IPCC lied about the sources on which they based their very report.
Since then, she has been speaking out about IPCC and the untrue statements she could prove they had made, in addition to publishing her book and blogging about the issue. It is therefore not surprising that a whistle-blower from within IPCC itself had sought her out to leak some information to her regarding the next IPCC report.
Donna Laframboise has gone public with this material yesterday, January 8th, 2013, by publishing a long post on her blog ‘No Frakking Consensus’ as well as a guest post on WUWT (Watts Up With That, world’s leading ACC-skeptic site) with links to the data from the three memory sticks with information from the so-termed ‘Secret Santa leak’.
Today, she had been served with legal notice by IPCC to take the data down or else…
So, if you’d like to get a hold of the data (I know I’ve been busy reading over it – fascinating stuff), better download it fast…or look for some of the many torrent sites distributing the information. Like Donna’s post concludes:
‘But really, the cat is out-of-the-bag. The damage is done. Thousands of copies of these documents are now out there. They can’t be recalled.’
You go, Donna!
Exposing corruption in unaccountable bureaucracies which increasingly try to regulate our freedom out of existence is the duty of each and every one of us!!!
Since Dr. Mann’s new hobby of suing people has brought up the subject of the ‘hockey-stick graph’ – specifically, whether its creation was honest incompetence or straightforward fraud valid ‘climate science’, I wend digging through the interwebitudes for some more background material.
Note: Dr. Mann is not suing National Review and Mark Steyn for comparing Penn State’s whitewashing of both the pedophile and himself. Not at all. He is suing them for having called him a fraud. And the reason he is suing Dr. Ball is because he said that Michael Mann belongs in State Penn, not Penn State… Therefore, I am not suggesting either of these things, in any way, shape or form.
There is so much material out there, it is difficult to pick the best few – the ones that best document the events. However, here are a few front runners:
‘The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It’s a long tale – and the longest posting I think I’ve ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.’
Here, meticulously documented, is the story of how the ‘hockey-stick graph’ went from being just one paper, submitted by one scientist, to ‘scientific consensus’ and unquestionable holy writ.
It documents questionable behaviour by the scientists involved, the editors of the journals and the IPCC folks, none of whom appear to be following their own guidelines of professional conduct.
the IPCC itself…
While we are on the topic of IPCC itself, it is important to note that while they loudly touted the unfortunate hockey-stick graph for quite some time – before quietly removing it without an explanation – it is important to understand that this is not a body of leading scientists: it is primarily a political body, formed by a political organization, through a politically correct process, to promote its own political agenda – with a few scientists tossed in for window dressing.
One person who has documented IPCC’s sloppiness (if not downright corruption) and lack of adherence to its own rules is the Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Here she is, from a tour in Australia:
Much of the IPCC process was dominated by ‘climate modelling’ – computer programs that try to predict what will happen based on what has happened. On the surface of it, this seems valid: the problem is in how these models were constructed. It seems they are, to put it mildly, highly flawed.
Another fundamental problem for the IPCC reviewers was that they were only permitted to comment on the studies which were pre-selected and presented to them for comment. This selection process was highly sensitive – but handled by the behind-the-scenes bureaucrats. There were many instances where scientists spoke up, saying the material they were presented with was not representative of the current work in the field and asked to be permitted to include a broader spectrum of studies. These requests were summarily dismissed by the apartchicks running the show.
But even as hamstrung as they were, when scientists actually commented on errors/omissions/inaccuracies in the drafts of the reports, their comments were dismissed, the drafts were not corrected and the objectionable conclusions or downright errors made it into the final reports. Cough, Himalayan glacier, cough…
That is not a sound scientific process….
While I was scouring the interwebitudes looking for supporting links, I came across an interesting site:
He is a singularly interesting figure in the world of Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. (In this comment thread on Bishop Hill blog, the field is referred to as ‘Mann-made Global Warming – lol.)
Dr. Mann is also the author of the thoroughly debunked ‘hockey stick’ graph – as demonstrated by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Dr. Mann has said some very ‘not nice’ things about this statistician and economist…
Two Canadians.
Canucks!
And, he is in the process of suing Dr. Tim Ball – another Canadian!
Aside – this lawsuit is not going well for Dr. Mann: as part of the discovery process, he has to hand over for courtroom scrutiny the very data he has spent a decade hiding, or face contempt of court charges and a ruling in Dr. Ball’s favour. Somebody did not think his tactics through…
With all the critics of Dr. Mann ‘out there’ – why is he picking on the Canadians?
Could it be – CANUCKOPHOBIA?
I don’t know – perhaps we should have someone in the sensitivity training field pay Dr. Mann a little visit, just to be on the safe side…
What about those who think everyone is unfairly picking on poor Dr. Mann?
If you don’t think the vast bulk of the criticism heaped upon him is undeserved, please, consider the following: his Penn State course information contains the following: (H/T betapug)
GAIA – THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits) with the course schedule for days 37 & 38 is : MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1 and Part 2)
Yes – according to this ‘scientist’, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Universtiy-level science material! LOL!!! When, years ago, I showed it to my kids, my young son actually thought that this movie was made with intentional errors in the science so as to train kids how to spot bad science…and greatly relished pointing the mistakes out!
Come on!
If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you really ought to know better than to use such seriously flawed material as a teaching tool…
In other words, perhaps more than any other scientist of our era, Dr. Mann is rather to be ridiculed…perhaps his compulsion for making himself the laughing stock of the scientific community is rooted in the same pathology from which his (potential) Canuckophobia stems.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 