Sorry to have been gone so long. It seems impossible to blog with so many other fun things going on. Still, I read my favorite blogs and occasional climate paper, even if I don’t comment much. Recently Lewandowsky et Mann (birds of a feather?) published yet another pro-government rant claiming to be science related.
It is hardly worth reading but read it I did: The Subterranean War on Science. My willingness to read that is proof that I am literally as dumb as a rock. Don’t make the same mistake!
The article is one of the most disgusting pieces I have yet read from the “Climate Science™” community. It is written as though it actually has supporting references but the article is beyond reprehensible in content. It has literally zero scientific value and wouldn’t make the cut at a blog but somehow a “journal” managed to publish it. I did manage to leave a comment:
Of course, I may have been a little to harsh considering the article contains this amazing content:
“According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees “
For 50 points to those who have the chops – True or False?
“For example, mitigation of climate change or public-health legislation threatens people who cherish unregulated free markets because it might entail regulations of businesses ;
FYI – That scientific statement is not possibly, potentially or realistically politically motivated because it IS a well-known “Climate Science™” fact that free markets have destroyed peoples lives across the world. Especially true for those unregulated ones – very scientific.
As a trap to those like me, they also tried to backhand a point so often made here. I do love the scientific tone of this psychological observation:
The conspiratorial element of denial explains why contrarians often perceive themselves as heroic dissenters who — in their imagination — are following Galileo’s footsteps by opposing a mainstream scientific “elite” that imposes its views not on the basis of overwhelming evidence but for political reasons.
So Lewandowsky and Mann are the “Elite” and those who disagree with them are heroes fighting the good war. WOW! Ok, I’m going to have to step in the Galileo trap!
Now that leads to a few questions! If these mathematical wonders are the elite, why can’t they make a single good paper between them? Were they actually elite scientific minds, wouldn’t they practice in “actual” science like physics or chemistry? What sort of self-delusional moron would think themselves so above the rest of us because of….. It is truly shocking that their narcissism has proceeded this far. A life to easy – methinks.
Sounds like a psychology paper!!
The real elite in the case of modern Climate Science™, is comprised of those who control government money, taken from our hard working hands, and placed in the pockets of often moderately functional scientists and activists who naturally support more of the same. Such high opinions of themselves they hold eh? e.g. — recently Lewandowsky took fake questions from questionnaire study with descriptive results and applied distribution style statistics to make obviously pre-determined conclusions – it was accepted thorugh peer review! e.g. #2—- how about Mann throwing out piles of data which doesn’t match his pre-determined intent and averaging the remainder for the result!! hehehe.
All for the cause I suppose.
Teasing aside, it is only with the most serious heart that we can look at claims such as this:
This article surveys some of the principal techniques by which the authors have been harassed; namely, cyber-bullying and public abuse; harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests, complaints, and legal threats or actions; and perhaps most troubling, by the intimidation of journal editors who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient by deniers. The uniformity with which these attacks are pursued across several disciplines suggests that their motivation is not scientific in nature.
The paragraph is another fraud.
Harrassment of Lewandowsky with legal threats is particularly interesting to me. Considering that he blatantly and on two separate occasions libeled me in print, as a form of intimidation, in an actual (alleged -sorry) scientific journal, and refused to recant any of his false accusations until it escalated to the point where he and the journal were legally threatened, this comment is disgusting. All they had to do was fix the problem, yet he refused.
Many skeptic names are actually on a desmog list that an extreme left-wing activist professor (other than Lewandowsky, Mann, Bauld, Hastings, and Loftus) had PUBLICLY advocated for our government supported execution and not by private email on a university paid website. No he was not fired – in case you are newborn to left-wing Earth and were actually wondering. Why the desmog list of climate bad-guys even exists at all can only lead to the worst of conclusions. Unlike Lewandowsky’s new friends, I and many readers here, have been ruthlessly attacked by the climate science community for years behind the scenes and in public. Can you even imagine having your name published in a psychological “science journal” from another country as though you had some kind of mental condition PURELY because you dare to disagree with their scientifically and governmentally unsubstantiable climate agenda? I never thought it possible – until Lewandowsky did it.
This particular paragraph was troubling because it is dishonest. Far from harassed, these people are lauded wherever they go and their own self-aggrandized words give the truth of it. They are so held above the rest of us mortals by their government benefactors at worldwide events and conferences, that they actually publicly claim to be — the elite of the world. Claims that editors are harassed are cute, but are equally as perverted as the implied censorship. We have actual emails from the climate community, including at least one of these actual authors, working behind the scenes to ban journals and main-stream papers which didn’t bow to their anti-industrial pro-authoritarian cause.
Obviously, like skeptic big-oil funding, the strategy is to say the opposite of reality often enough that it becomes truth. In my opinion they are fools, because it will not change reality, nor mark their names in hallowed scientific history, but this is 2013 and they are OUR fools. We own them because our elected governments support them, and we therefore deserve their perceived successes.
This bit was in the end of the second to last paragraph and it did warm my heart:
Lewandowsky, Oreskes, Risbey, Newell, & Smithson, 2013), and allegations of defamation have led to the re-examination of one of the first author’s papers to eliminate legal risks that is ongoing at the time of this writing (Lewandowsky, Cook, et al., 2013).
I am particularly glad that the paper is STILL being re-examined as I was the guy who claimed defamation. Because Lewie actually DID commit the offense. Two times in fact. The first was from an earlier “scientific paper” and could potentially have been held as accidental by a we-don’t-want-trouble biased review board. They board (or editor) did do the right thing though, and removed the false statement in that case. It was the second paper, which also specifically referenced me inaccurately, where there wasn’t any realistic potential for Lewandowsky to be simply misunderstanding my position. From my perspective it was intentionally fraudulent science, but that opinion implies understanding the mind of Lewandowsky’s intent, and is therefore scientifically not provable. However if Lewandowsky is being investigated along those lines to any REAL degree, I do have a few emails that the committee would probably be interested in.
I think other climate non-oath takers were likely defamed as well the second time around, and I admit not paying attention enough to know how far anyone else actually went to correct the record. Perhaps they are the victors keeping the dis-informative rag from publication.
What is abundantly clear is that the “scientists” of this paper, are nothing except political idealists with water-faucet money and big TV cameras who live by an ages long yet never-said mantra which not-so-ironically Galileo in his cell, did well understand:
You must not openly question conclusions of the self-appointed governmental scientific elite.
When things don’t make scientific sense, refer to the first.
THE governmental Elite…..
Some things change with time—– others will never.