I enjoy tent camping in North Carolina at places like Merchants Mill Pond State Park, but beware of parks located near military bases. In the past, I slept at one park with a ‘sensible’ 11 PM cut-off for loud low flying military jets so this spring, when the low flying parade of jets at Hammocks Beach State Park started at nightfall, I grinned and bore it even when they were so low and loud that I could not use my cell phone. However, when it didn’t stop until 1 AM I decided a refund was in order. No such luck! Even a letter of protest to the governor’s office was insufficient to get my money back. I am told that the people at the noise control hotline 910.451.9079 can tell us if Hammocks Beach will be disturbed like this on a given day by large quarterly training sessions. Call ahead.
So, Word To The Wise, -check out parks near North Carolina military bases very carefully for their noise policies, especially Hammocks Beach!!
WARNING - North Carolina Parks Is Running Experiments on Sleep Deprivation at Hammocks Beach State Park!
Welcome to the Curmudgeon’s Corner
This is a hodge-podge of subjects, but I hope you find something in here that’s interesting, and maybe even useful!
Square stern Canoes - The ‘Go-Anywhere’ Bass Boat
I love conventional canoes, but when there’s a load to carry, or I want to go somewhere fast, paddling gets tiresome quickly. For this, I have a 15 foot, 70 pound square stern canoe that fits on a car top carrier, so no expensive trailer is needed. I’ve rigged a hook on the bow to catch the car top carrier’s front cross beam. Approaching from the rear of the car, sliding the canoe up by myself is easy. This particular canoe is over 40 inches wide, so its stable, and with a 2 to 4 horse power motor, it gets me where I want to go reasonably quickly. Now, I won’t win any races, and I don’t make any sharp turns, but it’s fast enough for my needs at a tenth of the cost of a full blown bass boat with its motor and trailer. Next time you think of buying a boat, look at square stern canoes.
Hey, National Rifle Association, some things are more important than money!
Now, I want the NRA to be successful, and that takes money. In an effort to get more money, recently the NRA, thru ‘NRA Outdoors’, has offered ‘hunts’ designed to appeal to slob hunters. The most disgusting of these has shooters sitting in helicopters chasing after running hogs, leaving a trail of dead, dying, and wounded animals behind them. Another is a class for long range shooters who apparently live on a bare bowling ball somewhere out west and are unable to hunt to find any game animals that can be shot at less than 400 yards. Field Editor Bryce Towsley, in the September 2013 issue of ‘American Hunter’ magazine in an article on cartridges for hog hunting writes, “We have an obligation with any game animal to reduce the possibility of wounding losses as much as possible. Elk, deer, hogs or coyotes - it makes no difference.”
The American auto industry went down the tubes after the ‘bean counters’ began running the show. I’d hate for the NRA to forget it’s origins in its desire to get more money flowing in. The NRA has been helped enormously by the public’s generally favorable view of it. Associating with slob hunters will quickly squander this good will. Isn’t there anybody on the NRA’s Board of Directors who can understand this??
“Slob hunter?? I ain’t no stinkin’ slob hunter!!” Umm ….. Yes you are.
Hog hunting discussion from the internet -
“I’d use the .22 calibers for head shots, and would consider body shots with .243 on up. If I didn’t know the pig was dead, I wouldn’t track it, just not worth it to me.”
This is SO wrong, and the guy doesn’t even realize it!!
An ethical hunter wants to kill humanely, so first of all, he or she must know their quarry and their guns. If an animal, like a pig, is tough and potentially dangerous, then a sure killing shot is mandatory. No ‘iffy’ head shots permitted, no too small calibers, like a .243, permitted. One sure shot, one dead animal. Karamojo Bell, an exceptionally good shot, considered Cape Buffalo to be just big cows and he never had one charge. He described shooting at one wounded animal that a lion had mauled, “What he would have done if I had not put a bullet through his neck, I do not know. Perhaps he might have charged.” The point being that the best way to handle a potentially dangerous animal is to kill the animal before it becomes dangerous. That means one good shot with a sufficiently powerful weapon. And, yes, if you do only wound, respect for the hunted animal means that you must correct your mistake by tracking that animal down and killing it as quickly as possible. There’s no way around it, going out with an inadequate caliber, filling the animal with lead, and then leaving the animal to go to waste is the act of a slob hunter.
“But it’s only a hog, its only a worthless pest!”
Ok, if we want population control, kill them in industrial quantities, as long as its done humanely - which helicopter ‘hunting’ isn’t, and recognize that ‘killing’ isn’t ‘hunting’. Hunted animals deserve the respect that we give to any living creature. In fact, hogs have a lot of human characteristics - They like to reproduce, they are smart, tough, adaptable and they can be downright mean.
CLIMATE CHANGE CONTROVERSY FOR NON-SCIENTISTS
“You can fool Some of the People All of the time, and All of the people Some of the time, but you can’t fool All of the people All of the time”
Professor Feynman - ‘Science and the Scientific Method’ in 60 seconds
What is the ‘science’ behind climate change alarmism?
With thanks to Judith Curry (link):
“There is widespread agreement on these basic tenets:
Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet”
there is major, widespread disagreement on their causes and consequences. The theory of human caused catastrophic climate change trumpeted by Alarmists’ is based on the predictions of computer models, which actually are only high tech guesses, which must be confirmed by experiment.
Climate change Alarmists scream - “The world will drastically change if Something isn’t done!!” and Careful Scientists and climate change Deniers (same difference) respond,
“Maybe, but prove it.”
A proposed scientific theory must:
1. Equal the performance of the best older theories in explaining what is going on. (Easy usually)
2. Must show how it is better in explaining things than the older theory. (Harder)
3. Must PREDICT things that can be tested. This is where climate change alarmist’s models fail totally.
Professor Feynman - “… If (the theory) disagrees with experiment, then it’s WRONG!”
1. For thirty years there have been alarmist warnings of imminent DISASTER, and for nearly 20 years, the Earth’s temperature has been UNCHANGED (The Hiatus).
2. Antarctica has NOT been losing ice mass, but has been gaining for a long, long time (Link).
3. The models vary by up to 3 times in their predictions (link).
4. To date, there is NO proven ‘cause and effect relationship between environmental CO2 levels and rising Earth’s temperature because the degree of “CO2 Forcing” is UNKNOWN (Link).
5. Oceans play a key role in the regulation of the earth’s temperature, but the new ARGO system shows that the oceans are not warming (link). AFTER their theory got into trouble, but not before, to explain the observed lack of oceanic warming, some global warming alarmists postulated, seemingly out of the thin air, “shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean.” This is the same approach used by people ‘saving’ the Ptolemaic theory that the sun orbits the earth when THAT theory got into trouble. Those folks simply postulated another epicycle and “See, our theory still works!”
Hey Alarmists!! - The theory of catastrophic human-caused climate change, as presently formulated, is WRONG. (Link)
Get Over It!
John Maynard Keynes - “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Is the earth’s environment highly sensitive to ‘greenhouse gases’, with those scary-sounding ‘tipping points’? Well, the Permian extinction of 95% of the earth’s marine species and most of the land ones may or may not be linked to increased CO2, but the point is that it certainly was associated with tremendous environmental turbulence that didn’t result in long term global warming. How about the extinction of the dinosaurs by a huge asteroid, with resultant world-wide fires and vulcanism? Nope. The Deccan and Siberian traps, again with extraordinary vulcanism, widespread fires and tremendous outpouring of ‘green house gases’? Nope. How about fishes and other marine organisms happily surviving near underwater volcanoes with extraordinarily high acid conditions, does this sound like a minor increase in the oceans acidity will cause widepread extinctions (Link)? Nope. Climatologists are experts in, well, climate. They know little or nothing about biological systems and Earth’s complex, and robust, negative feedback systems.
Ready, Fire, Aim! - Jim Hansen shouldn’t have skipped that freshman science lecture on differentiating ‘Association’ from ‘Cause and Effect’
For several years in the 1980s and 90s global temperatures increased while human-caused atmospheric CO2 levels also increased. The obvious conclusion was that the ‘green house gas’, CO2, was causing the increase in temperatures. However, for the past 18 years or so, and now counting, temperatures have NOT increased while the CO2 level continues a slow rise. Differentiating an ‘association’ from a ‘cause and effect’ relationship is one of the basic first steps in scientific investigation. As an analogy for readers without a science background - Suppose you are an ardent global warming Alarmist, while your spouse is an equally ardent Denier. Frustrated beyond endurance, you tell a friend over the telephone that you are going to straighten him out by kicking him in the rear end to see how high he’ll go. Your husband overhears this conversation and, alarmed, proceeds to protect his back-side with a cast iron skillet before going outside to garden. A short while later you see him bent over, scream “Denier!!” and kick his rear end. He rockets skyward gratifyingly and you limp back to the telephone to report to your friend that the experiment had the most satisfactory results. However, ascribing the leaping ascent as the result of your kick is an incorrect cause and effect relationship. Your husband really reacted to the sudden scream of “Denier!” His upward leap was merely an association in time to the kick to his posterior, which he did not feel at all.
In my opinion, the absence of a continuing increase in global temperatures, while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, strongly suggests that CO2 has incorrectly been ascribed as the cause of the temperature increase and that Jim Hansen, and many others, have jumped to the wrong conclusion. They ‘fired’ before they knew what the target was. The BURDEN OF PROOF is now on global warming alarmists to show, not by the guesses of computer models, but by EXPERIMENTS and FACTS that there are scientific grounds for their belief in catastrophic human-caused climate change/global warming. No ad hoc ‘saving the theory’ allowed, no “consistent with”, ‘likely’ or ‘probable’ claims. To my knowledge, admittedly imperfect and limited, there are no such good scientific grounds. Being a sceptical climate change Denier, if such grounds exist I have no problem with changing my mind.
(“When the facts change, …”)
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY IS CENTRAL TO SCIENCE (link)
Dr. Feynman on intellectual honesty - "... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is ... bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist."
There are SIGNS of intellectual honesty, and also SIGNS of Intellectual Dishonesty (Link)
Hey - Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, Phillip Sharp, and all your legion of fellow Alarmists -
Why Don’t Climate Change Alarmists Ever Discuss Their Climate Models’ Limitations??
“Notwithstanding their complexities, the models remain deficient in many aspects of their portrayal of the climate, which reduces their ability to provide reliable simulations of future climate”(Link).
Recently, it was reported that Carbon Dioxide may disappear from the environment much more rapidly than the numbers used in climate models’ predictions, vastly increasing their uncertainty (Link). This is hugely important, whether it is confirmed or not, because it gives us just one example of data being put into models that may be totally wrong, BUT THE MODELLERS DON”T KNOW IT! Fixating on their computer models, Alarmists forget - “Junk in, Junk out”(link)(link). However, as the tv huckster says, “But wait! There’s more!!” - The MORE you try to make models BETTER, the WORSE they perform because the better data brings with it more accurate assessments of uncertainty (Link). Climate change Alarmists always loudly proclaim the CERTAINTY of their predictions, but they NEVER talk about the UNCERTAINTY of their data.
More Dishonesty - Climate change alarmists call to mind several fables or ‘fairy tales’
‘People who live in glass houses…’
Some Alarmists accuse climate change sceptics of being in the employ of private industry, as if the same doesn’t hold true for Alarmists and their corporate sponsors(link). Do a ‘Google search’ - “climate change sceptic” and you’ll find 4 ads supporting climate change ‘special interests’! Blaming it all on the Koch brothers is utter HYPOCRISY!
‘The Emperor has no Clothes’
Climate change Alarmists constantly claim that there exists a 97% scientific consensus supporting them. This is emphatically NOT TRUE but does serve to avoid embarrassing debate(Link) (Link). 50% is more accurate, and it’s dropping fast! (link)
"The Little Boy(s) Who Cried Wolf!"
We are all well acquainted with the constant drum beat of scary 'Dooms Day' scenarios of climate change Alarmists. Dr. Stephen Schneider, reportedly a close advisor to Al Gore, was quoted in 1996 (with highlights and parentheses by me):
" On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. (As such, we should work) to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. ... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both(wink, wink, nudge, nudge)." (Link)
By definition, being ‘professional’ means doing your job without letting your personal, individual likes or dislikes influence your performance. Climate change Alarmists crying ‘Wolf!’ are BOTH unprofessional AND unethical , as well as being flagrantly intellectually DISHONEST!
The End is Near!
The easiest way to get and keep government grant money is to scream about an apocalyptic crisis that only the grant recipient can prevent. It works. Scientists are emphatically NOT free of greed or the drive of personal ambition.
“The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!!” - At least, Chicken Little had the excuse of an acorn.
Except for credulous Journalism majors, and similar folks, the alarmists at the UN’s IPCC have been pretty well discredited( Here and Here). However, the Obama administration has now created a new group of ‘Chicken Littles’ in the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC). At their recent televised roll-out of their report, they announced unanimous agreement on the calamitous nature of climate change. The committee members include a university academician who openly advertised for more federal grant money for further expensive research, and an environmentalist from a group whose website proudly proclaims”Our priorities include curbing global warming”. These conflicts of interest speak for themselves. An honest attempt to study climate change requires unbiased participants. These obvious conflicts of interest reflect the politicians’ requirement, and indeed demand, for ‘unanimous’ agreement. The problem is that this little group of biased individuals was selected to lay the ground work for our country’s climate change policy and was thereby given tremendous influence (Link)(Link).
The blatantly dishonest Jonathon Gruber (link) has many look-alikes in the climate Alarmist camp. The willingness of certain Alarmists to in fact relinquish their role of scientist and to become advocates -exaggerating "scary scenarios" and frankly lying (link)(link)(link), of course has grave implications for trusting Alarmists' claims. It also brings to mind previous "scary scenario" claims such as by climate change Alarmist Mario Molina about the then newly discovered and little known antarctic 'ozone hole' being catastrophically enlarged by human activity. While this claim remains a possibility, it has NOT been proven to the present day(link)(link)(link). It wouldn't be the first time that a Nobel prize was given out erroneously.
In view of 'Climategate', the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) PR campaign for "What We Know"(link), and the numerous distortions and exaggerations of Alarmists, ask yourself - Would you blithely buy a used car from Michael Mann, Mario Molina, John Holdren or any of their buddies?
'Fool me once, shame on YOU, fool me twice, shame on ME!'
But Even the military agrees with Climate Change Alarmism!!
The military, at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, and under an ardent Alarmist Commander in Chief, has now concluded that climate change is a threat to the security of our country.
Question - How do you pronounce S-Y-C-O-P-H-A-N-T? (Link)
Lysenkoism - When AUTHORITY mandates, or commands, science (link), AND dissenters suffer harsh penalties, or were merely shot.
1. Authority mandates science -
Recently, President Obama went to Alaska specifically to call attention to the reality of imminent catastrophic climate change (link), saying, “(Human caused catastrophic) climate change is no longer some far-off problem, it is happening here. It is happening now. “ But, the Exit glacier has been well known to be decreasing for over a hundred years, sometimes at a rate, such as from 1914 to 1917 , fully equal to the current rate, and since neither the air nor the water is increasing in temperature, where in the world could this ice-melting heat be coming from, except in Mr Obama’s overheated imagination?? We all recognize that Mr. Obama is very bright. However, his background as a lawyer and community organizer was not optimal for giving him exposure to the scientific method. That is why he has a science advisor, John Holdren, a typical Establishment product of the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists, and Holdren must know that Mr. Obama’s assertion is simply nonsense. In the complete absence of a scientific basis, for Mr Obama to insist that “Catastrophic climate change is occurring because I say it is!” is merely a further example of American Lysenkoism -
“Mr. President, science doesn’t work that way!”
2. Dissenters suffer harsh penalties -
When ‘Global Warming’ was replaced, virtually overnight, by ‘Climate Change’, it became obvious that the ‘Green’ Corporations, their lobbyists, environmental organizations’ lobbyists and bloggers, and their liberal backers like George Soros, were ‘singing off the same sheet of music’. This close cooperation continues to the present day. The most graphic recent example of this is the lynching of Dr. Willie Soon. He isn’t even a climate change opponent, as such, but was merely a convenient target to show what would happen to scientists who did not agree with the dogma of Climate change. Read these links to get the picture (link)(link).
The ‘bottom line’ is that Dr Hansen can get a million dollars from ‘good organizations’ DIRECTLY for his propagandizing ‘climate change’ without any criticism (link)(link), while Dr Soon, getting routine support from energy companies, among other sources, and with no evidence that this had influenced his scientific work, and while following the rules of nondisclosure of his employer - the Smithsonian Institute, became the target of a loud chorus of white sheeted figures holding torches, led by the New York Times, demanding he be fired for his ‘corrupt’ work (link).
This campaign of intimidation has worked. Except for a very few scientists with integrity such as Dr. Judith Curry, willing to accept the very real penalties for ‘speaking truth to power’, government employees, academic department chairs and individual scientists have been conspicuous by their silence. What incalculable harm has been done to American science by this cowardly and corrupt behavior, and by the the Science Establishment demonstrating to graduate students and post-Docs that intellectual dishonesty is not only accepted, but rewarded?(Link)
Climate Change Lysenkoist Sally Jewell (Secretary of the Interior) - “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior”.
Climate Change Alarmism as Religion
For many Alarmists, climate change is more than a scientific matter, it is a deeply held religion. Pachauri, the long time head of the IPCC, in his resignation letter stated - “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the protection of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”(Link) Do you honestly feel that he would have favored or supported any subordinate who believed differently about this?
”Yes, the IPCC – which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission.” (Link)
In interviews, some ‘scientific’ Alarmists feel so strongly about climate change that they become downright tearful! (Link) Hmmm … ‘Scientific objectivity’?
The next step is obvious. The AGU, NAS, AAAS and other like scientific organizations must band together, choosing Mr. Obama as their Spiritual Head, with James Hansen, Michael Mann, Marcia McNutt and Ralph Ciccerone as Ardent Disciples, and proclaim the Orthodox Position. (I exclude Al Gore and Prince Charles because Al has no scientific background and is hopelessly compromised by his business links, and Prince by his similar lack of scientific background due to his 'day job' with the British tourism ministry.) In the recent past, climate change sceptics who have deviated from Climate Change Orthodoxy have been told that they deserve to be tried for murder, or they should just commit suicide, or be thrown out of their scientific organizations and hurled into Outer Darkness. Galileo at his heresy trial was familiar with this mindset (link).
How Did We Get Here? -Science, Politics, and Corruption
Since World War 2, America’s scientific efforts have been coordinated by a Science Establishment consisting, among others, of the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, with active assistance from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the support of the government. Scientists would submit research proposals that, if approved, would receive money from the Establishment’s sources. By and large, until recently they’ve done a pretty good job. Now, for whatever reason, the main Establishment scientific organizations have too often abdicated their use of critical thinking where the theory of catastrophic climate change is concerned. For example, the unaccountably biased joint National Academy of Sciences-Royal Society report on climate change - “…their strategy of making overconfident answers to nearly all of the questions, then discussing the ‘uncertainty issue’ in a superficial way at the end of the report is flat out misleading”(Link)(link).
There are many examples showing that the AAAS and NAS are joined together as tightly as ‘Siamese twins’, Marcia McNutt’s merely being the most recent (See below). The supposedly independent National Science Foundation, dominated by figures from the AAAS and NAS now speaks with their same voice. For example, the NSF section on ‘Climate Change’ has a litany of half-truths and downright exaggerations justifying their activity(link). This has led to NSF support of such projects as a $700,000 musical(link) and ‘educational projects’ that are simply one-sided propaganda for the pro-catastrophic climate change position(link)(link).
In 2011 there was a reported 5 billion dollars for climate change up for grabs, with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Science Foundation biting and kicking for their shares (link). This infusion of money into climate change research exceeds the available good research projects, resulting in a number of questionable(Link) or frankly worthless research (This is ANOTHER ‘gem’ from our modern-day version of ’The Journal of Irreproducible Results’ - ‘Science’ magazine) (Link) .
Again, NOAA government scientists in a paper published by, who else?, ‘Science’ announced that the 17 or 18 year hiatus in rising Earth’s temperature had magically disappeared! (Link) All it took was a little massaging of their data, altering good data - but only slightly, to better fit previously obtained poor data. To their astonishment, and to the astonishment of their ‘pal reviewers’, and to the astonishment of the editor of ‘Science’, this ‘cherry picking’ has been criticized! (Link) - ‘Those dang busybody critics should mind their own business!!’ So, climate change Alarmists, fudging their data, working in their own self-congratulatory ‘bubble’, hiding behind complex but unworkable models - which they hope will shield them from criticism, look more than a little like Dorothy’s Wizard, hiding behind a curtain. (Link)
Dorothy might say of them, “Ooh, … You’re very bad scientists!”
This money, put into REAL science such as biomedicine, might have made possible important discoveries in the area of infectious diseases and mental health, to mention only two. An internet search for climate change/AGW, scientific organizations, and corruption uncovers many 'hits', two of these are representative (link, link). The corruption is pervasive and widespread.
For years, the leadership of the AAAS (a.k.a. - American Association for the Advancement of [Liberal] Scientists), from Holdren to Sharp, has been increasingly politicized until now it is a virtual ‘Who’s Who’ of climate change Alarmism. Oh, and their current CEO, a Democratic ex-congressman from New Jersey in the top 10% of liberals while in congress, has proclaimed that “Millions will die” from climate change (link)! Yep.
Not coincidentally,a recent survey determined that the AAAS members self-identified as 55% Democrat, 32% Independent and 6% Republican, and more than half said they were ‘Liberal’ or Very Liberal’ and 9% as ‘Conservative’ (link). Playing to this gallery, the AAAS recently produced “What We Know”, which should have been entitled “What We Believe”(link) (link). The then-new editor of ‘Science’, the main journal of the AAAS, Marcia McNutt, following religiously in the footsteps of her predecessors, immediately established her status as a liberal climate change activist (link), continuing this to the present (link). It is impossible to be an objective editor of a scientific publication while simultaneously acting as a cheerleader for climate change Alarmism, a subject in which she is clearly not an expert. In 1999, George Lundberg lost his job as editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, a far more prestigious position than editor of ‘Science’, when he was perceived to have once-too-often injected his own personal views into that magazine’s pages (Link). It is clearly too much to expect the demand of a similar standard of proper ethical behavior from the Board of ‘Science’ magazine, and McNutt, as a reward for her service, has now been selected as the next President of the NAS! Under such editors as McNutt, and with active ‘Pal review’, ‘Science’ magazine has degenerated to tabloid publishing of trashy Alarmist articles such as ones claiming dire, but easily refuted, threats from climate change to such species as butterflies (Link) or bumble bees(Link).
When the Science Establishment was first meeting around a table to discuss ‘Global Warming’, a fictive fly on the wall may have heard something like this -
At the head of the table a man with a pleasing Spanish accent was speaking - “Look, you want more money and power for the NSF and NAS, ‘green’ corporations want to make money,and the AAAS trade union over here wants more money for their members, right? Easy, just do as I did. Find something that looks scary, like, say, an ‘Ozone Hole’ and trumpet it from the roof tops. Then, if it gets better, take the credit - whether deserved or not, and if it gets worse, just demand more money to ‘save the world’.
An attractive woman seated across from him, tossing her blond locks - “Well as a magazine editor, I can choose who gets published, and you guys at the NSF and NAS control who does the research and their projects. People better get on board with us or they’ll have to get out! I call it “Publish (the approved stuff), or Perish!”
There was an outburst of general laughter around the table.
Someone interjected, “But the scientific basis for all of this is lacking, and the misallocation of valuable resources will actually hurt science.” He was stonily ignored and soon was asked to leave the room.
After a pause,a voice added, “Let us at the NSF select the scary topic! ‘Global warming’ or maybe ‘Climate Change’ sounds good to me. The ‘green corporations’ stand to make buckets of money from this, and environmentalist groups will be able to use this to increase their membership, this is a natural coalition with both of them. We’ll spread the scare everywhere, and if someone gives us trouble, we’ll paint them as Monstrous Climate Change Deniers and shame them into silence! We don’t need any silly ‘scientific debate’ to get in our way!”
Another voice added excitedly - “At the NAS we have some cooperative statisticians and really good climate modelers who can give us just about any result we want (link)(link), I’ll get them on this right now!”
As the meeting broke up an unidentified voice was heard - “We’ve got a Winner here, with the flood of money coming in, I’m gonna be able to panel my office in walnut!”
President Eisenhower in his ‘Farewell Address’ famously warned of the dangers of a ‘Military-Industrial Complex’, less well-known is his warning of the dangers of a ‘Scientific-technological elite’. Are we seeing this now, scientists symbiotically allied with politicians, each with their own agendas, and both powerfully supported by corporations which are making money from the climate change band wagon? This is terribly harmful to the public’s trust in scientists. Altering slightly a line from a must-see classic 1958 television show, ‘Maverick’, about a crooked banker, -
“If you can’t trust your scientist, who can you trust?”
From ‘Kindly Unhitch That Star, Buddy’ By Ogden Nash -
“Because when people start hitching their wagons to a star,
That's the way they are.”
If ‘War is too important to leave to generals’, then in my opinion, ‘Science is too important to leave to scientists’. It has been estimated, admittedly by hostile observers, that we are spending 20X more of our precious tax dollars on climate change research than is needed, and it is shameful that 27 years after Dr Hansen first raised the specter of ‘Global Warming’, we are only now establishing the true outlines of the situation. I believe that this situation results from our inbred scientific Establishment and the way our research money is allocated, see this reference. - the ‘Old Boy network’, cronyism, “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine”, the pressures of ‘outside partners’,and the ‘groupthink’ manner of operating are all alive and well in the current Science Establishment system. I feel it’s time for congress to rethink the current system for organizing scientific activity. Even politicians could not do worse than the current Scientific Establishment(Link)! If a congressional staffer reads this, please take note!
At this time, the scientific underpinnings of the theory behind catastrophic human caused climate change are cracking. I believe that, at the current rate, within about 10 years the theory of catastrophic human-caused climate change will be totally discredited and that within 100 years, historians of science will look back on the claims of such people as Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Mario Molina, and their supporters with the same combination of incredulity, dismay and contempt that we currently feel for the zealous supporters of the Salem witch trials.
Richard Feynman - "... we really ought to look into theories that don't work,
and science that isn't science..."