Another Blow for the Ecowarriors

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, you are claiming that I am claiming that.

As well as the koch brothers being behind a 'denialist conspiracy'.

[Tim Streater]

At present, I'm afraid, talking about "peer-review" for climate-science matters as if this is the only path to credibility is a bit like expecting Galileo to ask the Catholic Church to rubber-stamp his ideas on the Earth going around the Sun. After all, who are the peer-reviewers? Other climate-scientists!

Most people working in most fields of scientific endeavour are unlikely to want to put their heads above the parapet. They have jobs to protect and are not in any sense mavericks. We lack people, these days, who might be. Where are Richard Feynman or Fred Hoyle when you need them? Dead, unfortunately, but they would piss all over this stuff in short order, as individuals who were fearless scientists and immune to bullying.

See, there doesn't need to be a "global conspiracy". We have the jesuits of the Green Party and other fascist entities such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. They just keep on the pressure with their openly stated agendas.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Don't even you find it odd that such organisations - with such a tiny membership or even supporters world wide - apparently have so much clout?

[charles]

They are obviously lizards in disguise.

[Tim Streater]

They're good at propaganda, and who would want to oppose Friends of the Earth. That would make you an Enemy of the Earth, wouldn't it? And who'd want to be that.

There's also a pool of layabouts available to them, to go and bash heads in on demand (I mean, it's not as if these people have anything else to do with their lives). They *enjoy* the nihilism of being permanently opposed to things, without understanding that this is the easy irresponsible option that any fool can adopt.

[Huge]

A friend of mine couldn't get his PhD thesis approved because it contradicted the received wisdom of the day and made a "big name" look foolish. That was 40 years ago, before AGW had even been thought of. My friend was eventually shown to be right, but never got his PhD. So don't tell me there's no politics in science.

(Oh, and it was in biochemistry, not some fluff subject.)

[Tim Streater]

Agreed but not in disguise.

[Huge]

[50 lines snipped]

I love the way warmists deliberately conflate skepticism, which is the standard scientific position, with denial. This is because their position is religion, not science.

[Tim Streater]

The Jesuits will be round soon, Huge, to explain to you the error of your ways. Like Peter Mandelson, they know where you live. And remember, like Doug and Dinsdale they don't want a *debate* about it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, the green party alone gets millions in EU funding for a start.

Big business sponsors EU politicians via lobbying,

Politicians pass laws favouring certain industries.

Politicians give grants to universities, and political parties, and many other organisations.

Green politics is the way its sold to the great unwashed.

It's just pure cronyism.

Scientists who don't produce the science the government wants dont last. Look at David Knott.

[michael adams]

In other words most science is a load of old bollocks, as nobody dare question the current orthodoxy which is wholeheartedly supported by those vested interests with the greatest financial stake in its continuation.

Sothat no only is global warming a load of old bollocks but so also most likley is the Higgs boson - promoted solely so as to provide employment and taxpayers money for loads of otherwise unemployable misfits.

As far as the general public are concerned at least, Feynman is most famous, for pointing out, years subsequent to his retirement, the effects of very low temperatures on the elasticity of rubber "O" rings. Again as far as the general public are concerned Feynman is noted for his original work in the field of quantum physics - providing models and interpretations where none had previously existed rather than subverting any existing paradigm in his field of expertise.

Or perhaps you know better ?

michael adams

...

[Huge]

Oh, FFS.

[michael adams]

Except that industries such as car manufacturers, and the petrochemical industry could make their product at a much lower cost were not for "green" regulations, so they could sell more at a lower price thus generatingh larger profits; while the public woudn't be burdened by unpopular "green" taxes and subsidies which distort energy pricing, and support inefficiency. In fact any industry which uses energy in any form is going to be paying more than they would be were in not for green subsidies

So why would all political parties conspire to promote a policy which not only raised industries costs uneccesarily and eat into their profits, but also alienated voters by forcing them to pay totally unecessary taxes and subsidies ?

Manufacturinhg industry has nothing to gain by "greenery",per se. Neither has the petrochmical industry Neither have poltical parties for whom greenery simply represents costs - in term of highly unpopular taxes they need to impose for no real tangible benefit at all in terms of public perception.

So if its not industry, or politicians who are behind it all, and stand to gain this only leaves only the masons, the Illuminati, or the jews.Or the Bildereberg Group. Most of whom probably already belong to one or more of the first three groups in any case.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Presumably you've never heard of Ignaz Semmelweis then ?

When somebody needs to support a widely acknowledged general principle with a personal reminiscence concerning a friend of theirs from 40 years ago, either that or it was something they saw on a TV programme last week, then that's not always a very good sign, IME.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

It's called rhetoric. In this case taking the opponent's position to its somewhat exagerated logical extreme.

HTH.

michael adams

...

[Tim Streater]

Science that becomes *politicised* risks being a load of old bollocks, yes. Like the theory that the Sun went round the Earth and that all the planets did likewise, in perfect circles. Remember all the convolutions and bodges they had to apply to make those notions fit even approximately to reality? Hmmm, now what does that remind me of?

This is rather less likely.

Having seen Feynman in action at a lecture he gave at CERN while I was working there, and seeing what he did with the O-ring during that congressional committee hearing or whatever it was, it's clear that he was willing to tell it like it was - no bullshit. You should read some of his autobiographical books sometime.

Likewise, Fred Hoyle. When you've worked out all the basic processes for how fusion works in stars, you can afford to be a bit bolshie (although some say that cost him his Nobel Prize) and promote as he did the Steady State theory rather than the Big Bang. However, as a proper scientist, i.e. a skeptical one who would accept being proved wrong, he did a lot of work that eventually supported the Big Bang.

[mcp]

It's a reasonable summary of what you say however you try to dress it up.

I've never claimed anything of the sort. I pointed out a specific case where they funded research which they thought would be advantageous for them. Any link to wider 'denialist conspiracy' is your invention.

[Tim Streater]

Ah, the old "if it's not black it must be white" argument, eh, Cato?

[michael adams]

Except that in democracies with an effective opposition, any distortion can be rectified following the next general election.

Whatever your own or anyone else's opinion of Al Gore might be, it strains credulity to imagine that successive US adminstrations would adopt measures which weren't in the best interests of the US, measures which potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage with the likes of China and India, unless there was some sound basis for their continuation.

So that in your opinion Al Gore and a few hippies exert the same power and influence as the the Catholic Church did at the time of of the counter-reformation.

Any other historical parallels you'd like to share ?

BTW it was Copernicus'es theory. Galileo has originally been asked to review it by Bellarmine, but coincidentally at a time when he'd succeeded in refining his telescope to the extent that he could view the moons of Jupiter. Because the moons actually orbited Jupiter rather than being in stationary orbit this proved that the geocentric or Ptolomeic model was wrong.

Im not sure whether the sale of telescopes was banned or not.

Not in the opinion of the general public. Every time it's a bit warmer than usual or there is an extreme weather event some numpty will cite that as evidence of global warming.

There's nothing which can ever happen which will really succeed in convincing the general public, or any politicians for that matter, that higgs bosons really exist. The latter just nod their heads at the right moments just so as to look clever. Or at least not look stupid.

Never mind what possible difference it can ever make to anyone, whether their existence can be proved or not.

As good a definition of taxpayers money down the drain, and jobs for the boys, as its possible to imagine.

there are loads of Feynman lectures on Youtube for anyone who's intersted

The point about Feynman was that he had charisma. He was born in an exotic sounding place called Far Rockaway in Noo Joisy which from memory was by the shore and had beach hurs but equally possibly had power stations on the horizon. During his boyhood mental arithmetic was a bit of a craze, with columns in newspapers and Feynman won lots of competitions. Evidenty mental arithmetic relies on a number of heuristics or rules of thumb - which may have featured in the newspaper columns. Any way he was regarded as a bit of a prodigy. He also exuded authority at a young age. He was among the youngest team leaders at Los Alamos, and was sent to the plant at Oak Ridge Teennessee where they were separating uranium in steel drums to impress on them the hazardous nature of the material they were handling; of which they were unaware. Depite her having contracted TB with a pretty gloomy prognosis, rejecting all advice Feynman married his childhood sweetheart, who moved to a sanatorium within driving distance of LA. Feyman's interest in codes arose from the coded letters he and his wife exchanged to circumvent the tight censorship operating at Los Alamos. Again from memory he also picked locks as a hobby simply to make mischief.

However charisma can be a double edge sword, as history can amply testify.

Well yes. It was Hoyle who first coined the term "Big Bang" in a radio programme in way that his critics claimed was meant to be perjorative. Which wouldn't be surprisingh given that he'd also described such a theory as "pseudo science". Not sure about Hoyles comet virus theory though, as opposed to the primodorial soup model. Not only has the primodial soup reaction been sythesised to a degree in a laboratory but Hoyle's rejection seemed largely based on probability, which possibly falls victim to the anthropic principle. As we're here and actually exist, no matter how improbable it might be in theory, the very fact we're around confounds any such improbability and renders it academic at best. He also resigned his professorship and took to writing sc-fi IIRR. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with either of those.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Rather more its the old -

It's because, as Tim Streater says, "most people working in most fields of scientific endeavour are unlikely to want to put their heads above the parapet" that we're still riding around in horses and carts, and relying on candles for illumination.

michael adams

....