Can you trust a scientist ?
The coming climate change
CRISIS prediction is not based
on science.
Never was.
The prediction started about
50 years ago, and ramped up
a lot after 1988.
In 2018, the predictions
became hysterical,
in my unbiased opinion.
Any bad news prediction
about the future climate
was published in the
mainstream media,
without question.
The media attempted
no examination of the
past predictions of gloom,
which were 100% wrong.
The claim that adding CO2
to the atmosphere should
cause global warming
is based on laboratory
science.
There has been mild,
intermittent global
warming since the
late 1600s, but it is
impossible to be sure
of exactly what caused
that warming.
It is very unlikely that
warming had natural causes
until 1975 ... then man made
CO2 suddenly became
the "global average
temperature controller"
... and natural causes of
climate change suddenly
no longer mattered.
But that's what we are
told to believe, and called
climate deniers if we
don't believe 4.5 billion
years of natural climate
change suddenly stopped
in 1975, and no longer
mattered !
We learned from cigarette
manufacturers that
scientists could be paid
to say cigarettes were safe.
We learned from the
mainstream media
in the mid-1970s
that scientists
who predicted
a coming
climate disaster
would get lot's
of attention.
At that time,
a small number
of scientists predicted
a coming global cooling
climate crisis, and got
a lot of public attention.
Now lots of scientists
predict a coming global
warming disaster,
and they get
lots of attention.
In fact, they must believe
that prediction to get a
science job funded by
a state or federal
government,
and they risk
the loss of their
paycheck
if they publicly state
what I state here:
-- The truth --
(1)
Today's climate is the best
it has been in hundreds
of years.
(2)
There is no logical reason
to predict a coming
climate crisis.
(3)
No human has ever
demonstrated an ability
to predict the future
climate.
Consider this sad mixture
of politics and science:
“Although our data
and statistical approach
were valid to estimate
the question we actually
tested (the race of civilians
fatally shot by police),
given continued misuse
of the article
(e.g., MacDonald, 2020)
we felt the right decision
was to retract the article,”
Michigan State University’s
Joseph Cesario and the
University of Maryland
at College Park’s
David Johnson wrote,
in their retraction request,
according to the blog
Retraction Watch.
Cesario and Johnson's work
linked to the excellent work
by the Manhattan Institute’s
Heather MacDonald, often
protested for publicizing data
showing racial disparities
in policing and crime
are typically due
not to racism,
but to higher rates
of criminal behavior
among blacks and
Hispanics, as compared
to whites and Asians.
Research has found that
black officers shoot black
suspects at the same rate
white officers do, and that
police in general are
more reluctant to shoot
non-whites.
That is the conclusion
of the study Cesario and
Johnson want to retract,
due to politics, not due to
scientific error.
That type of political bias
is the tip of the iceberg
of scientific corruption.
The bias starts with wild guess,
always wrong, always negative,
predictions of the future climate
on our planet.
Wrong predictions
are not real science.
Real science requires
right predictions !
Another example is politicians
using “science” to make
largely arbitrary, ill-informed,
decisions on how to handle
COVID-19.
The pandemic is still in progress,
so data are incomplete, and have
not even been checked for
accuracy.
There are no
COVID-19 experts
yet !
Science says
don’t wear a mask.
Science says
do wear a mask ?
Science says
gathering in groups
will spread coronavirus.
But not if those groups are
are anti-America protesters
hollering at the police ?
Science says
attending church
is bad.
But going to the
grocery store.
is good ?
Science says
kids shouldn’t
go back to school.
Medical organizations
say not going to school
is more dangerous
to kids than going ?
The Centers
for Disease
Control never
recommended
closing schools.
REPLICATION CRISIS:
As summarized in Nature,
a pro-leftist biased publication:
“More than 70% of researchers
have tried and failed to reproduce
another scientist’s experiments,
and more than half have failed
to reproduce their own experiments.”
What “studies say”
are NOT
generally reliable.
The “gold standard” is a
double-blind, randomized
controlled trial, which is
rarely done).
Social “science” has long been
a political manipulation tool.
You can't generate hard data
due to its subject matter.
Research on environmental
issues is notoriously biased
and unreliable.
Findings that contradict
leftist beliefs are
frequently suppressed.
Today’s science is too often
driven by ideology, not truth
seeking.
"Science" has become
a weapon to be used
against people who
disagree with leftist
beliefs.
Science had earned trust
from being trustworthy
and replicable.
Fortunately, people are
becoming more aware
that what
“the science says”
is a wild guess,
or even a lie.
A wild guess too often
defended by use of
Saul Alinksky style ridicule:
“You are a science denier.”
To paraphrase Yogi Berra:
I want to thank the climate
"junk scientists" for making
this climate science blog
necessary.