Yesterday saw the March for Science, a gathering of tens of thousands of people to march for more science funding and more science-based policy. I have a few thoughts on this over at my own blog. The TL;DR version is that science is a good input to policy, but it can not answer all our questions. Ultimately, many political debates come down to values. And while the Left is more “rational” and fact-based on certain issues, they can be perfectly irrational and superstition-based on others.
That’s the claim he makes <a href=’http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/stephen-hawking-world-government-stop-technology-destroy-humankind-th-a7618021.html” target=”_new”>in this article. Meh, globalists are getting desperate and even people that are supposed to be intelligent are now talking out of their asses. I find it not just naive but ridiculous to put faith in an entity that couldn’t do the job even at the micro level of states. What, incompetent credentialed bureaucrats like the ones running the EU or the UN will suddenly discover the secret to doing things right? Talk about being delusional. Shit, if the tools that will be running the global government don’t kill us outright themselves, they will use this tech to enslave us. Maybe Hawking thinks that is preferable to his imagined alternative, but I don’t.
Tech won’t doom humanity. Idiots thinking that only they are qualified and know what is best in charge of tech is what will doom humanity, and you are far more likely to get that with a global government than you are without. You want a bunch of social engineering idiots that think their will can bend the laws of nature, humanity, and physics to be in charge? Shit, Obama had the intelligence people spying on everyone, including his personal and political enemies. The Eu is a bunch of unaccountable douchebags that have been screwing over the people of Europe while they live a high life. And the UN, well that is one of the world’s biggest criminal organizations ever. Why the fuck would anyone trust an even larger and more intrusive government to do anything but make things worse for us?
I guess this “cri de coeure” by Hawking is just another desperate attempt at replacing the panic inducing shit other pro-globalization types push, like AGW, to sell their shit sandwich. The globalists are freaking out that their dream is dying, but I see it as a great thing that it is. Credentialed tools should not be calling the shot based on the horrible performance they have produced so far. That’s the real threat to humanity.
Despite my spidey sense tingling like crazy and that little voice in my head saying, “Leave this one alone” my curiosity and a genuine heartfelt desire to educate myself on a topic I feel limited in, I’m going to throw out another climate change post, but from the position that I would like input from those so called experts for my on benefit.
First a disclaimer, I have no science background and 8 times out of 10 whenever the subject is brought up, it comes from a position of certitude so off putting (the science is settled so get with the program) or it is espoused by those so radical/tyrannical (anyone that denies climate change should be jailed) that my immediate reaction is to change the channel. I admit I must resist the urge to tune out, thus this post.
There is a group of Republicans that formed to address the seriousness of climate change, The Climate Leadership Council. Here is their mission statement;
Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too
strong to ignore. While the extent to which climate change
is due to man-made causes can be questioned, the risks
associated with future warming are too big and should be
hedged. At least we need an insurance policy. For too long,
many Republicans have looked the other way, forfeiting
the policy initiative to those who favor growth-inhibiting
command-and-control regulations, and fostering a needless
climate divide between the GOP and the scientific, business,
military, religious, civic and international mainstream.
Now that the Republican Party controls the White House and
Congress, it has the opportunity and responsibility to promote
a climate plan that showcases the full power of enduring
conservative convictions. Any climate solution should be based
on sound economic analysis and embody the principles of free
markets and limited government. As this paper argues, such
a plan could strengthen our economy, benefit working-class
Americans, reduce regulations, protect our natural heritage and
consolidate a new era of Republican leadership. These benefits
accrue regardless of one’s views on climate science
What clued me on to these guys was a WSJ article I read this morning. It is a short piece, easily readable.
I would appreciate Stogy, CM, Hal, and Alex to comment on it from a position of;
Does this make sense to you?
Does it go far enough?
Do you think they have a proper handle of the situation?
Can capitalism/free trade exist in a world where climate change is seriously addressed?
Any other readers who feel compelled to comment is also appreciated.
Naturally I think any “carbon taxes/carbon dividend” steps can only be addressed after real meaningful tax reform, lowering the corporate tax rate and providing tax incentives to facilitate bringing back home the trillions out there overseas.
OK, let me have it.
I could set this all up and write as if I am totally surprised to find out that top men at NOAA have been lying again for political reasons, but that stuff is getting old and sad. Lets just read the thing and get to the most recent revelations of malfeasance by the credentialed elite with an agenda:
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
Where to begin? Tom Brady won a fifth NFL title for New England, pissing off that douchebag Goodell and setting up the stage for a ton of libs pants shitting when he and Bill Belichick meet with Trump and are all happy about it. No wait. That’s a different story for a different day. So I guess I will start with the revelation that this paper was not peer reviewed and was presented as critically important scientific fact by people with an agenda. I wish I could say this revelation somehow was a surprise as well, but considering how much made up shit, rigged data & models, massaged systems that always produce the same cataclysmic results, and whole cloth exaggerations, if not downright making up fake crap, have been part & parcel of this cult, that would drag me down to the level of these people. You of course ask yourself, how could this happen? What about scientific rigor and oversight? Well, here is what we find out next:
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Get that? The very director of NOAA’s climate data production factory rigged the game to produce the desired results that would fit the narrative by the cultists that the end was nigh. Of course, as we know, this is neither new nor uncommon behavior with these people, whom for some reason don’t lose their scientific credibility after being caught red handed fabricating the results they want to push the agenda, because the whole thing is political.
So since you can’t defend this indefensible anti-science behavior, I expect the cultists to attack a man with the following credentials for not believing the correct dogma that they sell by consensus.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
I am certain that this infidel will be punished for letting us take another peek behind that dirty curtain. The sad fact is that these idiots have themselves to thank for the lack of credibility they suffer from, and for the reactions clear thinking people – those of us that respect the scientific process – have towards them. When the crap hit the fan a long time ago when neither the models nor the predictions bore any resemblance to reality, had these people really been interested in making the case with science, the correct action would have been to go back to the drawing board. We got none of that. They basically doubled down on the nonsense, screamed even louder, denigrated and called anyone that pointed out they had nothing to really stand on, accusing them of being deniers, all of which were clear signs you were dealing with a cult.
Revelations like this, only serve to make it even more clear that we are not dealing with anything scientific. Well that and the fact that the solution to this calamity always boils down to some massive wealth redistribution scam that removes more of our freedoms, drastically grows the nanny state, seems to have a scary eugenics bent at its center, and without a fault always serves to enrich a small cadre of establishment credentialed elites. This nonsense has been very lucrative for a connected few, and a costly and idiotic thing for the rest of us. It’s time it died and the reds picked a new calamity to push their agenda with. Maybe a meteorite strike or an alien invasion.
Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can’t get their “dirty weather,” as Al Gore calls it? Then they’ll just have define down what a disaster is.
Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”
The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.
Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.
After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed.”
“We need a new hurricane intensity metric,” he said, “that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland.”
The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides “a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane’s sustained wind speed.” But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.
“So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”
“This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”
The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — . They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.
They did it with unemployment and other economic measurement units, so why not with this too?