Posted On: Wednesday - April 18th 2018 7:17AM MST
In Topics:   Websites  Global Climate Stupidity  Pundits
Peak Stupidity has not discussed the Global Climate DisruptionOUR Trademark - don't you forget it! field of stupidity in quite a while, excepting yesterday's post. It has really not been in the news lately, as a sort of long-term, slow burn (oops, too soon?) form of stupidity. I also think that Americans are really getting wise to the scam, and the Lyin' Press is backing off for the time being. Before I lost most faith in any abilities of President Trump to make some real changes, there was his heartwarming rejection of the bogus Paris Accord (man, I miss THAT Trump), which also put the issue on the back burner, heheh!
However, just this morning, a guy named David Archibald published Climate Groupthink on Takimag. It is a historic (going back to the late 1980's, that is) overview of the politic aspects of climate research, hence our post title continues from Peak Stupidity blog writings of over a year back. Mr. Archibald's article is really a summary of Global Warming: A case study in groupthink. (.pdf download that I have NOT read yet) written by the eminent Englishman Christopher Booker. He is one of the few journalists, especially in the formerly-Great formerly-British police state, to have the guts and lack of stupidity, at the same time, to report widely on the corrupt political aspect of this part climate science.
A couple of things to mention about the article/website in question are:
1) Takimag, mentioned before on Peak Stupidity blog, has discontinued its comment section. That can really ruin a website experience - not really a factor here right now, haha. Often, I look forward to reading comments more than the articles on various sites. Takimag HAD used Disqus, like "Discuss", get it? (I didn't, for like, a coupla years!). I had never commented, as the Disqus software/company required registration, that turns me off. The commenters under the Takimag articles were very intelligent, but sometimes too focused on minute historical details, and I didn't usually follow them all. For the website itself, I don't think the guy, Mr. Takidopolis (or whatever, he's Greek) is a rich man that must not care about hits to the website. I could see them going down by 90%, because having comments brings many of the same readers back dozens of times to one page. If it's not for ad-money, then that's OK, because you'd really like to get a measure of unique visitors to the site anyway.
2) The writer here, Mr. Archibald, at least in this article, did not write a nicely flowing, readable article like that of a Fred Reed or John Derbyshire. The order of things in this overview of the GCD politics is therefore not clear, and it doesn't seem very thorough. It's probably that he just wanted to quickly excerpt the important parts of the Booker report, kind of like me, in a minute. Hey, this isn't really a review, so it's not a big deal. The facts are still the facts, and they are pretty damning for the Climate Hoax pushers, in this article's case, the ones in Science.
To whit (hey I LIKE that!):
The scientific establishment in the U.S. and Europe were solidly on board the global-warming hoax from at least thirty years ago, before the evidence for it had even been concocted. Of course, any dissent from this was not tolerated; from page 13:But, as Lindzen noted, it had soon become clear that any proposals deemed likely to be at all ambivalent over global warming were highly unlikely to be accepted. He recalled how, in the winter of 1989, the National Science Foundation had withdrawn funding from one of his MIT colleagues, Professor Reginald Newell, when his data analyses failed to show that the previous century had seen a net warming (one reviewer suggested that his results were ‘dangerous to humanity’).
Back in the 1990s some of the original participants in the global-warming industry thought they were involved in doing real science, thus this amusing story from page 20 about an IPCC report from 1995:There's nothing at all wrong with scientific controversy; that's how science is often done. It's the politics that come in due to, as usual, GOVERNMENTS. The money to do all this work at universities all over the western world was given not by some companies or organizations that need science done, as in other fields where the results are immediately useful. Note, that is not the case here. Live off of the government teat, and you must obey her every whim, and the biggest one here was that "We are Doomed! We must show that in red/yellow/green 3-D graphs. Make sure everyone knows we are doomed. I don't want to hear any of that 'we're not doomed' shit!" OK, that's the face of it, but really it's more about "I want TOTAL CONTROL ... of energy use, production, and living in general!" To whit [WTF does that even mean?! Ed.]But no one was more surprised by this than several of the scientific contributors to those same pages, who had earlier signed off the text as an accurate record of what they had agreed. These now much-quoted words had not appeared in the draft they formally approved at a meeting in Madrid in November 1995.
In clear breach of one of the IPCC’s strictest rules, these two cited papers had not even yet been published. What astonished the scientists even more, however, was to discover that no less than 15 key statements from their agreed text had been deleted. And each of these had expressed serious doubt over the human contribution to global warming.
Because there was no evidence for global warming in the climate record, beyond normal variation, evidence for it had to be fabricated. One of these fabrications was Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph that got rid of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period. This was exposed by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who found that:I had no idea the Russians were involved, but then they've always been good in science. It sounds like were stand-up guys on this political science issue, but then caved in the end (you'd think the cntrl-left would LUV this guy Putin, but he must have gone off script again with all the peacemongering and stuff).In essence it seemed that Mann’s algorithm was ‘mining’ the underlying data for hockey-stick shapes, and therefore would give a hockey stick result from whatever data was fed into it.[ PS NOTE - remember all our writing about math models and proving the models? - Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, summarized here and here.]
Despite having the gumption to throw out a thousand years’ worth of climate data in pursuit of his hockey stick, Mann is a sensitive soul with a fragile self-identity. He went on to sue Mark Steyn and others for alleged defamation. Another unpleasant individual prominent at the time was the smarmy Tony Blair, then prime minister of the U.K., who sent a delegation headed by Sir David King to a climate seminar in Moscow organized by Putin’s economic adviser, Alexander Ilarionov. King behaved abominably. The Russians had recently emerged from seventy years of a totalitarian regime enforcing groupthink and were quick to recognize global warming for what it was, as told on page 28:He went on to speak witheringly about the ‘distorted and falsified’ data used to promote the ‘consensus,’ mentioning the ‘hockey stick.’ And he then tore apart the behaviour of King and his colleagues, pointing out their complete inability to answer scientific questions and referring to those ‘ugly scenes’ that had ‘prevented the seminar from proceeding normally.’
Ilarionov ended with a peroration warning that the world seemed once again to be up against a ‘man-hating, totalitarian ideology,’ dealing in ‘misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology and propaganda,’ in an attempt ‘to prove the alleged validity’ of its theory. No one listening to this storming rejection of all the ‘consensus’ stood for could have guessed that, four months later, on a private initiative by Tony Blair, President Putin would do a complete U-turn. In return for Russia being allowed to join the World Trade Organization on very favourable terms, it would now ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
I'll give you one hopeful thought here, in the midst of the Trump administration stupidity and all the rest that are leading us to the peak. We just haven't heard so much of the Global Climate DisruptionTM crap, so we can be thankful for that. Pretty soon, the way this is trending, I won't even have to be anxious about talking to a neighbor about the weather.