Further Data Points For The Trend XVII

Bunch today.

First of all, this is wonderfully ironic: from the folks who vilified their opponents, calling them denialists, folks who should be prosecuted, as little better than Hitler, the complaint that their knights in white armor - the climate "scientists" - are being bullied because...well, because the shoe is on the other foot for once. Their story, of course, is that the "underlying science" hasn't changed: of course, the data that was used to do the analysis has been shown to be largely invented and a figment of imagination, but the science hasn't changed! Ye gods: the fact that the data is worthless makes the science worthless.

The fundamental problem that the climate "scientists" now face is this: peer review has been perverted:

It shouldn't be surprising that those involved in the corruption of peer review should also be happy to use anecdotes and speculation as the moral equivalent of hard scientific data. However, it is important to understand that these people fervently believe in their cause and are convinced that, far from deceiving the public, they are preserving and protecting a higher truth.

It isn't just climate "science" that has been so completely bitch-slapped: all advocacy "science" has been given far too much rope to hang itself with. We now see the results: scientists everywhere must do their homework better, and that means that it is going to be that much harder to actually have a career as a scientist.

The importance of this farce cannot be underestimated: this is, basically, as damaging to science as Lysenko was to Soviet science, where political concerns drove mass-scale falsification and set science back decades. Let us remember what happened:

Lysenkoism grew from four main roots:

• a necessity to demonstrate the practical relevance of science to the needs of society;
• the amassing of evidence to show the "correctness" of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
• noble cause corruption, whereby data are manipulated to support a cause which is seen as a higher truth; and
• ideological zeal, such that dissidents are silenced as "enemies of the truth".

This fits the global warming theorists like a glove: the problem is that unless you have complete control of information within the scientific community, the truth will out, and the charlatans and the lysenkoists will be disclosed. But only after they have caused, literally, billions to have been wasted and have had major political influence. If anything, taking this approach rewards the most outrageous and absurd claims, as long as they can cloak themselves in the mantle of science.

In other words, we now see that science, so to speak, is too important to be left to the scientists, especially if the scientists themselves are politically motivated: the value of science is being severely diminished by the claims made and the attempts to prevent opponents from even being able to talk: the last link was to have been censored, but the truth will always out.


Finally, this is a piece that just drips with irony: one of the principle attack dogs of the climate "scientists" now warns that solar schemes in Britain aren't worth the money. Ye gods: imagine that!

The British government is making the same mistake the German government made 10 years ago, by believing that by subsidizing solar energy you can actually drive down the prices (instead, manufacturers make money hand over fist by being able to sell something for quite a bit of money something that ordinarily could barely be sold) and can turn energy production into wonderful, beautiful renewable energy, instead of that dark, dank, nasty stuff that comes out of the ground.

George Monbiot, the man reviled by so many as "Moon-Bot," appears to have woken up in the wake of the climate "science" crisis and is starting to discover that the emperor indeed has no clothes.

Got news for you, George: the emperor has never had clothes on in his life. But hey, welcome back (I hope) to the world of the sane.