the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

How to Form a Consensus

Posted by Jeff Id on February 1, 2012

The theme which started the URL of noconsensus, was that a consensus is an unnatural state for humanity. People disagree about everything under the Sun. Usually, disagreement is due to lack of information but we all know that many times it is about biased interpretation of information. The only questions in global warming are related to the magnitude of warming, what is causing that warming and whether it is a problem in any way at all. In my opinion, this is just my opinion, those questions aren’t even close to being answered by Climate Science™. Yet if the left wing environmental groups around the country cannot have consensus on the danger and the consequential need to enact anti-industry controls for that danger, their own self-destructive agenda cannot move forward.

Since this blog was started, the environmental activist groups, which are fronts for the most radical anti-industrial agenda, have really exposed their hands. From the president of Greenpeace announcing that they are really anti-capitalist to to 501C 3’s using taxpayer money to take political stances against conservative candidates. Recently in the news, another tax-free entity, Forecast the Facts, has compiled a list of 55 meteorologists who refuse to spout the dangers of climate change. It has long been understood that meteorologists are not inclined to agree with climate science doom predictions. After all, they can plainly see that droughts, hurricanes and storms happen all the time and that there is no trend in the history of these events. Since they are professional scientists who unlike climatologists, don’t make more money and recognition by agreement with the consensus, often times, they simply state reality as their less-influenced scientific minds see it.

As is so typical of those who believe in government control as a goal to be achieved, the extremists will not tolerate free thought and actually believe this as a BIG problem which needs to be addressed. It is unconscionable to them that scientists won’t repeat in unison that the world is ending due to industry and the excesses of modern life. You know, excesses like food, transportation, and heat. To that end Forecast the Facts has made a blacklist of meteorologists who have made anti-message statements and has consequently (predictably) come under a small bit of pressure in the media. In reaction, they recently published a statement of their purpose linked here, but we can read all we need to know about these people by the final paragraph copied below.

Like it or not, that decision puts the AMS squarely in the midst of this conversation. And in our eyes, there is only one way for them to appropriately comport themselves – quickly pass a statement that is consistent with the current scientific consensus, and then vigorously promote that statement to their members. Anything short of this would be a derilection of their duty as a scientific association. That is the conclusion that more than 13,000 people — those who have signed the Forecast the Facts petition — have come to, and we hope that number grows significantly in days to come. Because in the end, Forecast The Facts exists for one purpose — to make sure these people’s voices are heard. We can only hope that the AMS, and broadcast meteorologists across the country, start listening.

I find it amazing that the any person on Earth can read this and consider it a reasonable statement. See, we have no consensus on that either.

12 Responses to “How to Form a Consensus”

  1. Neil said

    I had a look at the blog “All Models are Wrong” yesterday and it was interesting to read the exchange with Peter Gleick about the name of the blog. It was interesting mainly because he thinks the name of the blog will affect the cause, that people will confuse wrong with useless. I don’t have the same issue as some models are useless and they are always wrong. I can’t beleive that he thinks so little of the general population that people can’t get their heads around a model being wrong in that it is not perfect and a model being useless. I guess the problem is that so much has been staked on models and many are showing to have limited predictive power that he can see the world tumbling down.

    As for the nutters in your post, 55 people they came up with and they seriously beleive that is a problem to their cause?? The good news is I beleive in cycles, humans swing in one direction, or get pushed or nudged and when it gets a bit weird they start to go back the other way. Why this is good is that the crazier these people become, the moe extreme in their positions, the more people will push in the other direction. The pendulum is well and truely swing away from them. Thank goodness.

  2. steveta_uk said

    The “Forecast the Facts” survey has only one question:

    “Do you believe there is solid evidence the Earth is warming?”

    Are they really that narrow minded that they’ve convinced themselves that many meteorologists would say “no” to this?

    The question says nothing about cause, attribution, effects (good or bad), or any of the enormous range of other uncertain factors that make the response to this one question of almost no significance whatsoever.

  3. 1984 is truly here.

    But you know what the real scary part is? These clowns do not even realize how much like Big Brother and nazi Germany (gassing, branding, etc.) they sound! They think they are being reasonable!

    And that is the scary part. People so blinded by hate, they will do anything to get their way.

  4. Hi Jeff,

    Consensus (the same) response to reality is one definition of sanity.

    The main goal of science and religion is awakening to reality. Einstein awoke to reality (Mass is stored energy); Buddha awoke to reality (Twin verses of Buddha). Reality cannot be manipulated or changed; Consensus can be and is manipulated.

    The Russian scientist, Pavlov, experimented on dogs to show how to generate the same consensus response by attraction to food (whether real or imagined).

    The Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, used threats to generate predictable, consensus actions by aversion (“We will bury you.”)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you

    The historic roots of the Climategate scandal suggest that the aversion of world leaders to death threats (Sanely if real; Insanely if unreal) convinced Western leaders to use the attraction of government scientists for research funds to generate consensus on global climate change (real or imagined).

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Climategate_Roots.pdf

    The lottery is used to convince even impoverished folks to part with their money – insane.
    A gambling casino is now being built to convince more folk to part with their money – insane.
    On Super-bowl Sunday large segments of the public will be totally cut off from reality – insane.
    Opium was used to subjugate China; Other drugs to subjugate the once powerful USA – insane.

  5. kakatoa said

    Jeff,

    Senator Barbara Boxer seems like she would support the Forecast the Facts approach as she supports The Climate Ethics Campaign http://climateethicscampaign.org/ .

    Specifically she is quoted saying ….”I pledge to do everything I can to stand up to climate change deniers, to shine a light on the truth, and to build support for taking common sense steps to address this critical global problem.”

    By the way you are no longer allowed to bring up uncertainty anymore either………….

    From the Handbook (page 4)- “Abiding by these moral and ethical principles means that even if the costs are high, we must avert one of the worst violations of human rights the world has been seen by acknowledging our historic contribution to the climate crisis and significantly reducing our emissions. Because the risk to humanity and the planet associated with inaction are extremely high, it is also morally wrong to use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for to delay or prevent emission reductions or prepare for the consequences of climate change.”

  6. Jeff Condon said

    #5 Wow. Morally wrong to point to uncertainty as a cause for consideration. These are absolutely interesting times.

  7. dougieh said

    Jeff, keep fighting like a brave –

    ps. agenda 21 has taken deep roots & now that i aware of this i see no way of stopping this.

  8. kakatoa said

    Jeff,

    Speaking of interesting times- out here in CA our Public Utilities District is deciding how to address smart meters and opting out of them. Phil Carson take on the process is interesting-
    California: mob rule on analog opt-out solution? PG&E’s, CPUC’s favored options may be discarded

    http://www.intelligentutility.com/article/12/01/california-mob-rule-analog-opt-out-solution&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=IU_DAILY2&utm_term=Original-Member

    I had my e-7 time of use meter (digital), read today by PG&E. My area does not have the infrastructure to permit sending the information in my meter anywhere.

  9. John Costigane said

    Jeff,

    The title should be “How to Break a Consensus”. Ms Gillard came a cropper when confronted by Aborigine protesters in Australia: a blow for science! The didgeridoo should become the emblem of skepticism: able to drown-out nonsense and deliver a knock when required!

    Tamsin Edwards (http://www.allmodelsareuseless.com) is hosting a blog to allow skeptics to interact with climate modelers. Might be worth a look for the more scientific skeptics.

  10. Brian H said

    There’s a charming French expression much in use in Quebec expressing refusal to consent: “Mange la merde!” It should be directed at FtF by every meteorologist not prepared to sacrifice his/her intelligence and integrity to Hide the Holes in the Climastrological Consensus.

  11. Ruhroh said

    Hey Jeff,
    This is a pretty great article. I thought of you while reading it.

    http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=544

    ” And because, fact is, if planes were piloted by (climate) scientists and politicians, airports and their environs would be a hellish landscape, littered with the wreckage and debris of crashed planes, awash with jet fuel, towers of flame sending huge plumes of black, oily smoke skyward.

    And that’s not just because of any lack in piloting skills…but rather the result of how we scientists and our colleagues seem to prefer to communicate… ”

    RR

  12. Jeff Condon said

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: